Trust seems to be a simple word, but even a quick internet search reveals that it’s not an easy word to define. Some definitions stress consistency; others mention safety from hurt. Whatever the definition it has long been said that participants in a mediation must be able to trust the mediator. The question is, then, what does trusting your mediator actually mean?

Many years ago, communication researchers Charles W. Rossiter and W. Barnett Pearce identified two components of trust in relationships—the perception of competence and of good will. Decades of research in mediation have underscored those two components.

That question has been addressed in detail by Jean Poitras, a professor at HEC Montreal. For his study of professional Canadian workplace mediators, Poitras asked participants how they came to trust or distrust their mediator. From the data analysis he identified several core factors:

• Mastery: A demonstration of experience, knowledge of their case, and self-assurance.

• Explanation of the process: Effectively explaining the process of mediation contributed to the perception of trust. While it is not specifically mentioned how mediators explained the process, I would assume it was during their opening statement.

• Warm and considerate: This meant making participants feel as comfortable as possible and displaying respect for the people involved. While the participants in the study didn’t use the word “empathy” that concept might reflect their thoughts.

• Chemistry: The researcher used the term “chemistry,” but from the phrases the participants in the study used, chemistry could easily refer to non-verbal factors. The participants referred to feeling, intuition or instinct from the meditator’s eye contact or gaze, tone of voice and other less tangible factors.

• Partiality: This component was a negative factor. Respondents who perceived the mediator appearing to pay closer attention or favor that party procedurally lost their trust.

It is easy enough to encourage beginning mediators to have a well-developed opening statement and to be careful to treat participants with neutrality and impartiality. That ways of demonstrating empathy, listening, questioning and summarizing are important. Giving suggestions for the other components of trust are less direct. One way, though, is to help beginning mediators develop a mindset that becomes reflected in their behavior. That mindset includes wanting to be completely present in the mediation, being positive that the process can work and being sincerely interested in the parties’ stories.

I received a question from a colleague after his experience with mediation in Small Claims Court as opposed to a traditional mediation setting.

 His case was this: One evening he took a glass jar out of his refrigerator and started to twist it open. As he did, the jar shattered in his right hand and he suffered several deep cuts. He went next door to his retired fire fighter neighbor for help who immediately took him to the emergency room. He was released the next morning with several stitches and a supply of pain medication. Recovery was slow and it appeared there would be permanent loss of sensation in his thumb and two fingers.

 Months later, he found an attorney willing to take on his case and sued the manufacturer of the product. He had complete documentation of the event and subsequent costs. The company asked for the glass from the broken jar. Fortunately, he had saved them and so they were shipped to the company with the requirement that they share any technical reports. Several weeks later they received a report documenting a flaw in the manufacturing of the glass.

 He was completely willing to settle to end the claim, but the company was not. What followed were months of depositions with attorneys flown in from different cities and assembling medical records, income tax records and work history. A trial date was set and the presiding judge ordered the parties to try mediation. He was informed that the attorneys had agreed on a mediator, a local retired judge. On the date set for the mediation, the injured man arrived in his attorney’s offices to discuss what he would settle for.

 The attorneys from the company were in another room and the retired judge was in yet a third room. The injured man never met or saw the attorneys from the drink company, nor the retired judge. His attorneys met with the mediator and periodically would come back to report on their progress. By the end of the day, the mediator reported that the session was terminated as no agreement could be reached.

His question to me was how could this mediation be so different compared to Small Claims Court where he was doing the negotiation himself? I tried to explain that there are different styles of mediation—all valid. What he had experienced was known as evaluative mediation, which was developed, as in this example, as court-mandated or court-referred attempts to settle a case.

The evaluative mediator is very active in helping parties reach an agreement by analyzing their cases, pointing out weaknesses in cases and predicting what a judge or jury would likely decide. Proponents of evaluative mediation point out that participants often prefer a mediator who evaluates their case and that parties are able to make better decisions when the evaluative mediator describes relevant law.