I recently received a reader’s comment who raised an interesting concern. They noted much is written about mediation stressing that parties reach reconciliation and pressures them to “get along,” suggesting people have to like one another in order to reach an agreement. And if an agreement is reached, is there then a perception behaviors and values they differed with are now accepted.

Mediation does not assume or require parties abandon their beliefs or endorse those of others. Assume, for example, a dispute between a parent and a school district over banning books in the library. The parties can hold significantly different positions but through mediation reach a mutually acceptable solution.

The first step is to treat each with politeness and courtesy. The second critical step is to develop and express a non-judgmental respect for their differences. For example, one party may come to understand the school administrators are motivated by artistic freedom and free speech. The parents may be motivated by parental rights and religious beliefs.

What makes mediation difficult or impossible is if either party is unwilling to find common ground while respecting their differences. Acknowledging legitimate points the other party presents, does not mean acceptance, but simply mutual respect and courtesy to find peaceful resolution.

Many professions have attempted to provide advice on how best to deal with “difficult people,” which often includes staying calm, controling emotions, taking time to listen, and attempting to find common ground.

These suggestions might work for some, but others require additional approaches to reach resolution. When asked for advice by an overwhelmed party, I do offer two alternative recommendations. Both are based on common cultural values faced with confrontation and the desire to reach resolution as quickly as possible:

First: I suggest stepping back and reevaluating what it is they really want to accomplish. Then I urge them to reconsider how they can meet that goal by simply asking, “is there a way around the difficult person to achieve what you really want and be strategic, rather than confrontational?”

Second: I questions why the issue must be resolved immediately. I pose this because change is inevitable and what seems intolerable at the moment can become less so as situations evolve.

Basically, these suggestions are to focus on what can and cannot be controlled. Of course, the two I’ve proposed are just another approach and might not alter the exchange with a difficult party, but it’s worth the effort to avoid direct, hostile confrontation.