In the past I’ve written some observations on reasons individuals give for not mediating their disputes.

To continue the discussion, I interviewed several major corporate and non-profit organizations who told me why they too won’t use mediation to resolve disagreements. Of course, their comments provide only their opinions and are not scientifically supported, but they are insightful nonetheless. 

For the most part, the reason all who I spoke with shared, was that to mediate a dispute meant giving up control. Instead, they believed it is more effective to argue, confront, and litigate. One even said that being perceived as powerful was more important than winning, because in the long term that is not a loss. 

How did these successful companies come to this conclusion? Surprisingly, one observed that individualism is highly valued in the United States and as a result, we are less concerned about the needs of others. Another attributed an unwillingness to mediate as being contrary to the dominant competitive nature of organizations. It would seem fair to say this point of view exhibited a high degree of narcissism or self-absorption. 

The true narcissist has an over-inflated view of themselves, a need to be admired, and a low understanding or recognition of how others feel. They demonstrate those traits by prefering confrontation and litigation.

To counter, I mentioned the resilience of a number of nonviolent peace advocates who changed societies. One discounted such examples by suggesting nonviolence is just another way to exercise power. 

I believe to encourage mediation when met with such resistence, the broader issues that concern all must be addressed. Our personal and professional relationships would benefit from learning to respect others, be open to developing trust, and place value on collaboration for better resolutions and stronger relationships.

I followed Wikipedia’s online dispute resolution procedure for years and find it an excellent example to share.

Entries on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, are collaboratively written by thousands of volunteers. Most entries have multiple authors. Occasionally, disagreements emerge among volunteers regarding the content of entries. To address these differences, Wikipedia offers online procedures for resolving disagreements among its providers. 

Users with issues are first directed to use “Talk” pages for discussing edits and making proposals. Wikipedia enforces strict behavior guidelines. 

If there remains a content dispute, users may try the “Dispute Resolution Noticeboard” for discussion facilitated by uninvolved volunteers to attempt compromise and settlement. The unbiased volunteers are chosen for their “calm and patient demeanor.” 

One component is where a third party guides the discussion over disputed elements of content to an agreement. The process is described as discussing the thinking behind positions for increased tolerance and respect and not for disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, nor being unwilling to compromise. 

The entire Wikipedia dispute resolution process with its openness, fairness, and effectiveness reflects the values of the early internet. 

The active and archived discussion are even available for anyone to read here.