Many conflicts end with the statement, “no further negotiation is possible.” This happens with political and interpersonal conflicts when parties want to disengage.

But how do mediators deal with individuals who refuse to negotiate since they cannot force them to do so? Fortunately, there are things they can do in either situation to help bring conflicting parties to the table even when accepting there are issues some simply aren’t willing to compromise on.

For example, with couples it can be the issue of child custody. In politics, it can relate to spending or border policy. When dealing with those committed to not compromising on such topics, then the next step is to ask, “What issues are you willing to negotiate?”

When parties refuse to negotiate they are in effect devaluing the relationship. Encouraging parties to continue discussions on any other issue potentially rebuilds some respect for one another.

In my own experience, while working with two businesses that refused to continue negotiations over the use of outdoor dining, I asked what were they willing to discuss. One owner mentioned parking issues and they spent a productive hour coming up with ways to address mutual concerns and after were willing to return to the outdoor dining disagreement once they recognized they could work together.

Many people in the United States believe “The American Way” is to confront one another. We do seem to support those who say they will fight for their beliefs. And we also seem to find the Confucian practice of using intermediaries when in conflict as somehow less honorable than face-to-face confrontation.

I believe somewhere along the way we’ve forgotten that confrontation is only effective when followed by compromise.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s Democratic Convention acceptance speech described the founding of the country: “When representatives from 13 unruly colonies met just down the road from here, some wanted to stick with the King. Some wanted to stick it to the king, and go their own way… Then somehow they began listening to each other… compromising… finding common purpose. And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation.”

Even the long past tradition of dueling has become misunderstood. We have forgotten the role of the seconds. Their primary role was actually to meet and attempt to resolve the conflict so that the duel would not be necessary.

Years later Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, developed the Missouri Compromise, South Carolina’s objection to tariffs and admission of California. Some historians now say with Clay’s death, the spirit of compromise left U.S. politics.

As a mediator, when I meet with a disputant who is adamant on not negotiating, I make several observations: “There are two possible outcomes here. Your win or you lose. And if you win your relationship with the other party will be destroyed. If you consider a compromise, both of you can come out with something and the relationship is preserved. Are you prepared for the loss?” My experience with those who refuse to negotiate is their real objective is not winning on the issue in dispute, but gaining power over the other party.

Why are disputants willing to risk it all for power? Winston Churchill said it clearly: “Power is a drug. Who tried it at least once is poisoned forever.”