Trust is an inherent part of mediation and dispute resolution. Parties in conflict are in a relationship. As they work together in mediation to reach an agreement, they have to share accurate information, and if an agreement is reached, to follow through. The challenge, however, is trust was likely diminished.

 The dilemma is the balance between honesty and trust. When trust in one party is weakened, the other may withhold information and not be completely forthcoming with their counterparts believing to reveal all information might result in giving the other party an advantage. Yet, choosing not to share information may threaten trust. In working together to resolve conflict, the parties must approach this dilemma by cautiously being honest with one another.  

 So, how can parties regain trust in each other? It begins by recognizing there are different levels. The simplest one is deterrence-based trust or trust that the parties will follow through on agreements because of potential consequences for not doing so. For some conflicts, this is all that is possible. The parties accept and follow through on an agreement because it has enforcement power. A higher level of trust would be calculus-based trust or trust that the parties will follow through on agreements because they benefit from following through.

 A higher level of trust can only occur when the parties believe each other to be trustworthy. That belief is facilitated by understanding each other’s frustrations and, if appropriate, apologizes. We judge trustworthiness from an individuals’ integrity, ability and benevolence. Integrity is the perception that the person will consistently adhere to sound moral values. Ability refers to having a relevant skill set. Benevolence refers to caring about the other’s well-being. This higher level of trust can only occur when the parties have rebuilt their relationships and recognize that by working together, they achieve their individual goals, as well as joint ones.

 Higher levels of trust are not accomplished in short order. That is why our first steps are deterrence-based or calculus-based trust. Higher level trust can be built from carefully worded agreements and contracts. As it has been said, “trust must be earned.”

I recently responded to a request to chat with a city mayor to persuade her to support establishing a community mediation service in her city. She was not a supporter. When pressed, she said in her opinion there was skepticism on the part of so many that mediation works and that those who would benefit from it would even use it. She stressed how she felt that was the public’s opinion, not that of city officials. 

To what can we attribute those beliefs? I’ve given much thought to this and offer some personal opinions: 

1 – A desire for a certain closure.  Most people in conflict want it to end , which will happen in a trial or in an arbitration. And most of those people, I believe, want a decision made for them—many in the belief that any decision will obviously be in their favor because “they are in the right” or in the belief that “the law is on their side.” In mediation, there is no resolution unless the parties develop it themselves. That requires the parties to work together, and more often than not, means there will be compromises. Rarely does a mediation result in “winner takes all.” 

2 – An uncertain skill set. Most people believe themselves to be competent, if not skilled, advocates capable to staging strong arguments in behalf of their case. If fact, most people spend a great deal of time describing their conflicts to others in terms of how they are right and their counterpart is wrong. They’ve rarely given any thought to ways of reaching a solution that benefits both parties. When people discover that mediation will not be a stage to argue their case, but rather they’re expected to work together with an adversary to find a mutually acceptable solution, they question whether they have the skill-set to use that environment to reach such an outcome. 

3 – Unwilling to give up any power. I’ve met with any number of people who have been offered mediation who reject it simply because they don’t want to meet in a cooperative environment with their counterpart. They say, “We’ll meet in the courtroom.” It’s almost as if they fear meeting with their counterpart across the table.

 I think, then, the mayor was saying she believes the public doesn’t see mediation as a way to achieve the resolution they desire. Advocates of mediation, such as myself, stress the benefits to the relationship that mediation offers.

It may simply be that we are stressing a benefit that in the heat of a conflict is desired by the parties.

We may need to say up front that mediation is a fast and inexpensive way to resolve conflicts that also offers other long-lasting benefits.