In most classes I teach, I ask the students to do an informal survey as to what they know about mediation.

The most frequent answer relates to the individual’s or a family member’s mediation experience with child custody and visitation. This raises at least two concerns. First, child custody and visitation mediation is unlike other forms of mediation, so people who assume that experience is typical are misled. Second, when asked to describe the experience many people expressed negative feelings about the process.

A significant number of people haven’t heard of mediation or had a misunderstanding, believing, “It’s when you close your eyes and try to clear your mind.”

Mediators know the benefits of mediation and don’t understand why people don’t seek it out more often. As a part of my students’ survey, they also ask “people on the street” how they resolve conflicts in their life. The most frequent answers were “fight it out,” “try to work it out,” “forget about it and move on.” And then when asked who they would go to for help with a conflict, mediation didn’t even make the list of their sources. The most frequent answers were “a friend,” “the police,” and “an attorney.”

Professional mediators need to recognize most people know little about mediation and don’t appreciate its value. Instead, mediators need to better inform the public about the various benefits.

Sometimes people meet with a mediator and never the other party involved during sessions, leaving them to wonder if they really participated in a mediation at all.

When disputing parties speak to each other, mediator’s refer to this as cross-talk, depending on their approach to conducting sessions.

In what is known as the “Evaluative Style,” often run by retired judges and attorneys, mediators may share their opinions about the case and possible settlements. Evaluative mediators may conduct the entire session using only private meetings with the parties.

In “Facilitative Style,” mediators don’t share their opinions and may or may not use cross-talk based on their assessment as to whther or not it would be productive.

In “Transformative Style,” the parties engage in extensive cross-talk.

As a mediator, if I believe parties are willing to speak with one another constructively, I will always encourage extensive cross-talk since, after all, it is the parties’ dispute and ultimately their agreement.

My colleague, Susan Nauss Exon, a professional arbitrator and mediator, recently shared an example of the value of cross-talk during a session between a businessman and homeowner. She learned in private meetings with the homeowner how frustrated she was because of several failed attempts to succesfully contact the businessman’s company, which lead to her filing a lawsuit.

Susan felt the homeowner needed to be heard, so she suggested a joint session and established ground rules of no interruptions and mutual respect. The homeowner made a logical, orderly statement of the events. In response, the businesman explained he had no idea of her difficulties and would have expected they’d be addressed. After the interaction, an agreement was reached and he learned about issues he may not have otherwise had be aware of, all due to the cross-talk approach.

As Susan recommends, there are times to keep parties separate and others to encourage cross-talk. An experienced mediator will help parties decide whether or not a joint session is right for them.