I’m often asked what “tools” mediators use to guide people in disputes to a resolution, as well as, which one works the best. I’m not sure any one of the “tools” mediators use is always helpful, so out of curiousity I ask why they want to know. The answer is always, “I’m looking for something I can use myself.”

With this in mind, I try give them something they can use in just about any situation: Never assume that what a person is demanding is the only solution that will relieve the problem that led to their situation; never dismiss the importance of their problem, and never argue with people about their needs until you understand the details of what led them to this point.

This simple advice applies to neighborhood, family, political and even international disputes. 

The mistake that most of us make is to respond to others’ demands without understanding the reasons for them. A simple typical family dispute will illustrate the point. It is not unusual for surviving heirs to argue bitterly over who will get family heirlooms. Usually, the intensity of the conflict goes way beyond the actual value of the items. Sisters can hold grudges for decades over who got their mother’s punchbowl. Rather than confronting each other and creating argumentative reasons, try to understand the reasons for each sister’s demand. It could be something like one sister wanting the punchbowl because it was used at her wedding. It’s not the dollar value of the item that motivates her demand, but the desire to have her memories reinforced by having that keepsake.

A terminated salesperson may have violated a covenant to not compete by continuing to solicit business from one company in her former territory. That could be an unpleasant mediation or litigation. Ask first why does she want to continue her relationship with that one client. That could lead to creative problem solving rather than unpleasant confrontation.

When one tribal nation raises opposition to a pipeline project, rather than budget for litigation and legislative advocates, ask why the nation opposes the pipeline. The concern may be water quality and that problem can be addressed when the parties are willing to work together.

So, to answer the question, I say again, don’t confront people over their demand without understanding their motivation for their position. That understanding can lead to cooperation and creativity.

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.”