I occasionally receive inquiries from people asking “what’s the difference” between mediation and another form of dispute resolution. At the risk of over simplification, these are the major differences I present:

In mediation, a neutral party facilitates communication and helps the disputing parties work out a mutually agreeable solution. What makes mediation different from other forms of dispute resolution is that it is the parties themselves who must develop the solution.

In arbitration, a third party reviews evidence, hears arguments, and renders a decision, which typically cannot be appealed. Various documentation can specify that any disputes under contract will be resolved by this process. Courts may also refer cases to arbitration.

In a settlement conference, parties meet with a neutral decision maker , typically a judge, to engage in negotiation. Settlement conferences can be voluntary or court ordered.

In neutral evaluation, disputing parties make presentations to a neutral individual who then offers a confidential evaluation of the dispute and may or may not assist the parties in negotiation.

In private judging, a non-judicial officer selected and compensated by the parties decides a case.

The next question is typically “which is best?” I tell people it depends on the parties, the nature of the dispute, where the parties are in the process, and most importantly, how much the disputing parties want to be involved themselves in making the final decision.

Recently, I wrote about the myths people hold regarding conflict and the need for mediators to identify the cause in order to help disputants find resolution. Equally important are the myths people accept about listening to others during meditation sessions and the following are examples of some misconceptions that should be addressed:

FIRST: You’re either a good listener or you’re not: A person may have been born with the ability to hear, but that doesn’t mean they really listen. Listening is a skill we either have or haven’t yet learned. It involves not only hearing words, but also observing non-verbal behaviors, putting both together and then determining meaning within the context in which they were expressed.

SECOND: Intelligent people are better listeners: While possessing a large vocabulary and other learned attributes that might improve understanding, it shouldn’t automatically be assumed such acumen results in better listening habits. That said, those with high emotional intelligence, known as EQ, generally have an increased awareness of others’ feelings and tend to be very good listeners.

THIRD: During negotiations, verbal skills are more important: It’s actually the opposite. Successful negotiators are convinced their most valuable skill is the ability to decipher what matters to each party involved in order to understand their wants and needs. That only happens through active listening.

FOURTH: There’s no need to listen if determining what parties require in advance: This is perhaps the most common misconception. It’s simply wrong to believe one could accurately surmise beforehand what parties in conflict need without hearing their concerns directly. Good listening leads to understanding how each party perceives the situation, instead of imagining for them what they should want and need.

Ultimately, mediators often find the need to address whether or not disputing parties believe their position is being heard to help prepare them for a constructive negotiation.