I am a strong advocate for using mediation whenever possible to facilitate parties reaching their own agreements. On occasion, I am asked when should a person not mediate.

The most direct answer is Standard One of “The Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators,” which establishes ethical guidelines for mediators. Standard One is “Self-determination,” where parties in a mediation must be able to reach a voluntary, uncoerced decision in which each party makes free and informed choices. Self-determination is a fundamental principle of mediation. If a mediator does not feel this principle can’t be met, they may decide to stop the session.

What, then, are examples where a mediator may pause the process?

The most obvious example is when one party has experienced or feels the threat of intimidation, duress, or physical violence. In family mediation a history of domestic violence may make it impossible for a party to express themselves and participate with their own self-interest in mind. In school and workplace mediation, where the issue is bullying, the victimized party may have a fear of future retribution for honestly expressing themselves.

Another obvious example is mental, psychological, and substance-abuse issues. If a party in some way lacks the necessary negotiation and decision-making skills, mediation is not appropriate, as there is no guarantee the person is reasoning well or understanding the process and outcome. The impairment need not be an ongoing condition. A party may be so emotionally distraught, there’s a need for postponement of the process until the party is better able to handle the emotional toll.

An underlying assumption of mediation is that parties are free and capable of negotiating and reaching an agreement as equals in the process without fear of future intimidation.

I’m asked about situations where one party has made it clear they do not intend to settle or one party feels the other only agrees to the mediation to learn more about the other’s position in preparation for later litigation. I’ve often had such parties in mediation and ask if they’d be willing to simply “give it a try.” In many of those cases, the parties who at first contended they had no intention of settling discover that mediation can, in fact, work for them and result in reaching an agreement.

The website Zippia, the online recruitment company, publishes job title demographics. While “mediator” can include a number of activities in various settings, the site identified 2700 mediators in the U.S., which is far less than the number of individuals who identify as mediators. Nonetheless, this resource provides some interesting data.

To better understand who is included in the report, it is useful to begin with areas of employment. Some 24% were positions in government, 16% non-profits, and 15% education. The unemployment rate has been less than 2% for at least ten years.

Of this group, 60% are female; 40% male. In the past ten years, the percentage of women has increased to 55%. This is consistent with my own experience meeting volunteer mediators where there is typically a higher percentage of women particpants.

By Age: 30% are 30 to 40 years-old and 65% are 40 and older.

By Education: 58% have Bachelor’s degrees, 14% Master’s, and 18% Doctorates.

By Ethnicity: 80% are White, 7% Hispanic, 6% Asian American, and 5.5% African-American. Current U.S. demographics, while not using the exact same categories, are 62% White, 6% Asian-American, 12% African-American, and 18% Hispanic.

This data reflects mediators employed in large organizations. If the larger pool had been identified, including self-employed and volunteer mediators, the demographic profile would most certainly be different. My assumption is a larger group will likely reflect an even high percentage of women and ethnic diversity.