I’m often asked by students in mediation training programs what are the most important tools a mediator uses to help people resolve their issues. There are many, but if pressed to identify those I think most important, I usually identify tools any of us can use in conflict situations to help with dispute resolution.

1. Establish an objective: Surprisingly many people enter negotiation or mediation without a clear idea of what their objective is. When pressed, many will say something like “I just want to get this resolved.” That’s not an objective. Having one doesn’t mean objectives can’t be amended as the process proceeds, but without an objective the party is, at best, adrift.

2. Establish a clear understanding of the consequences of not settling: Professional negotiators and mediators refer to this as the WATNA or ‘the worst alternative to a negotiated agreement.” To be effective, and to evaluate proposals, the parties must understand the consequences of not settling. Most times, the consequences of not settling isn’t acceptable. The parties must be able to weigh proposals against the consequences of not settling. 

3. Clearly understand real deadline pressures: Most dispute resolution is often brought to a close with a deadline. I often give the example that should I start a neighborhood mediation at 10a.m. in one room and another in different room at 10:30a.m., I guarantee with a high level of confidence that we resolve both before lunch. To be effective, deadlines cannot be arbitrary and should impact both parties. But be aware that some parties attempt to establish arbitrary deadlines just to pressure a settlement. 

4. Recognize that a demand is only one way to solve a problem: Most people enter a negotiation or mediation with a pre-determined solution they feel will solve the problem and they argue strongly their position. The most likely to be successful in negotiation and mediation recognize there is more than one way to solve a problem and are open to alternative proposals. 

There are many other “tools” that can be used in dispute resolution, but I find these to be the most critical.

Mediation is very much affected by cultural issues in three ways: 

First, the mediation process itself does vary by culture. The scholar Sally Merry has studied the process of mediation worldwide. One of her conclusions is that in individualistic countries, such as the United States, to be successful in a mediation the disputant needs to be able to tell their story in a chronological order, needs to be able to set aside emotion at some point and needs to engage in oral problem-solving. There are those who argue that individuals in the U.S. who are not comfortable with those skills may not fare well. Fortunately, a skilled mediator can adapt the process to the skills, strengths, special needs and concerns of the participants.

Second, the cultural identification of the mediator may have implications of its own. In the United States mediators must be neutral and impartial. Yet, the mediator’s cultural identification may impact the sessions. For example, if the mediator values assertiveness, they may unconsciously support participants standing firm and overlook opportunities for agreements. On the other hand, if the mediator values harmony and cooperation, the mediator may unconsciously support parties reaching a premature or inadequate agreement, which might lack durability in the interest of helping the parties agree. 

Third, the cultural identification of the participants has cultural implications too, as does the communication style associated with such identification. One example is how cultures vary in what is called high context and low context. High context cultures such as China, Japan, Korea, and most Latin American cultures, tend to understand conflict in a holistic context and focus on the affective, relational, personal, subjective aspects and avoid open conflicts. Low context cultures, such as the United States, Germany, and Nordic countries are comfortable separating conflict issues from the person and prefer direct, confrontational and competitive styles. For example, high context cultures are much more likely to use third parties in conflicts to avoid face-to-face confrontation. Low context cultures prefer to deal with their adversaries directly. 

So, how best to deal with cultural issues during mediations? I use two general guidelines: 

1.) Recognize your own cultural values and biases.

2.) When listening to other parties tell their story, don’t ask “How would I see this if I were in their position?” Instead, your understanding will only come from learning how the other person sees the situation from their perspective.