Here are some suggestions from mediators I have worked with that give some insight as to how to motivate otherwise reluctant participants to try using mediation.

First, environment can make a difference. If the parties involved agreed to meet face to face, where the mediation is scheduled can be a motivating factor. This is certainly a factor in court referred mediations held in a courthouse. The environment—the security, the personnel, the building and room design, the decor--convey the message that this is the place to get serious and resolve the issues.

Second, the mediator’s pre-meeting messaging can be a major factor for those with little or no experience with the process. Some may have had experience or knows of someone else who does from child custody and visitation mediation. Of course, this may not be helpful for dealing with other kinds of disputes. When the mediator is able to meet with the participants individually, they are able to explain the process, answer questions in a safe, private setting and convey a positive message that mediation can work.

Third, the mediator can suggest ways to adapt the mediation to an individual’s concerns. Mediation is a robust process and adaption make the process more comfortable for the participants. For example, if a person is unwilling to meet face-to-face with the other party, the mediator can suggest working as an intermediary with the parties themselves in different rooms. Or if a person is able to express the need for an emotional support person with them, the mediator can work to gain permission from all parties that the participant can have a family member or friend with them throughout.

Fourth, the mediator can limit the scope of the session. A person may be reluctant to mediate in the fear that they’ll be forced to discuss something they are not ready or willing to share. Mediation must be self-determined. No one can be forced to talk about something in they are unwilling to. If the mediator is made aware of some limitation, it can be presented and agreed to by all parties.

Finally, the mediator can listen. Several mediators have related stories that actively listening to the party and asking a few questions is often enough to motivate the person to go forward with the process. In the words of motivational speaker Steve Maraboli: “Sometimes we just need to be heard… There are times in life when being heard leads to being healed.”

While these suggestions are from mediators, they can apply as well to disputes any of us can find ourselves dealing with.

Many people who have been involved in mediation for years talk and write about its advantages — and I certainly have been one of them. We have become so convinced of the advantages that we are sometimes taken back by people who refuse to mediate. Over the years I have found that many who refuse share common reasons and misunderstandings. I’ve listed the most common reasons I’ve heard: 

1 – “I know I’m right and any judge will see that I’m right.” Two thoughts come to my mind when I hear this. First, it’s not unusual for the other side to say much the same thing. Both parties typically believe they are right or they probably wouldn’t be contesting one another. Second, I often check on what happened to those cases that refused mediation and went to court. Let’s just say that even people who believe they are right can lose. 

2 – “I don’t want to settle.” Why would anyone not want to settle their dispute? I have mediated court referred disputes where one party was not willing to settle. In a confidential caucus the party told me that their objective in suing the other party was simply to cause them distress and expense. They had no intention of settling, and, in fact, used mediation to cause even more problems for the other party.

3 – “Mediation is a waste of time.”  Typically, people who say this do not understand the process and have not had any experience with mediation. Many people simply don’t know what mediation is. Some years ago, one of my students did informal polling in grocery store check- out lines, simply asking the person in line if they had ever heard of mediation. The most frequent answer was that it had to do with child custody. And more than one said “it’s where you close your eyes and sit quietly.” Various studies report that 60% to 80% of voluntary mediations result in agreements. And even if the parties did not reach a formal agreement, the parties reached a clearer understanding of the issues and possible resolutions of their dispute, which may have lead to later reconciliations.

4 – “Agreeing to mediate shows you are weak and/or have a weak case.” I find this “reason” the most frustrating to deal with. Somehow the person has equated working with the other party to find a mutually acceptable agreement as being weak and continuing confrontational bargaining and litigation as being strong. Working together to reach an agreement can be hard work and requires strength from both parties. Mediation is not always easy. I’m not sure how needless and expensive continuation of confrontation in any way is a marker of strength.

5 – “I’m at a disadvantage because the other party is more experienced/a better negotiator/better speaker than I am.” This final reason can certainly be legitimate. As a conflict develops between parties, one party can feel at a disadvantage to the other for any number of reasons and simply don’t want to be in another situation where they experience those feelings again. Actually, mediation is exactly the situation those people should want. Mediators are experienced in “leveling the playing field.” As a neutral party they manage the process so one party cannot use the mediation to in any way disadvantage the other party.

People who decline the opportunity to mediate have reasons and as mediation becomes ever more available, those reasons should be directly addressed.