I’ve been asked repeatedly what makes a good mediation session work. But what people who are considering the process really want to know is what’s the magic behind it.

Each mediation is unique, but I believe there are two fundamental factors that explain successfull outcomes.

First, mediation levels the playing field and helps parties see the advantages of working together when addressing conflicts. Many attempts at dispute resolution fail because one of the parties simply is not willing to participate in a meaningful way. This usually happens if they see no advantage to participating. In other instances, some believe they have the facts on their side while others the financial resources to win; Many are convinced they’re right and any reasonable person would agree. When facing such hesistant participants, a neutral third party can encourage reasons and advantages of working together to resolve their issues.

Second, mediation requires creative thinking. So many disputants see one way only to resolve their issues. They see dispute resolution as just an opportunity to argue their preconceived solution. But parties can be motivated by an effective mediator to think creatively and find ways that satisfy both their needs and those of their counterparts.

From my experience, the most impactful mediation levels the playing field when infused with creativity.

These are two fundamental factors that make the process “seem” like magic.

The academic study of conflict dates back to the German philosopher Georg Simmel. Among his contributions was to assert for the first time that both harmony and conflict are natural and occur in groups and unable to change as a result. Years later the American Lewis Coser developed Simmel’s ideas into a series of propositions.

Among Coser’s observations suggests the absence of conflict is not an index of the strength of a relationship and that disagreements involving close relationships was likely to be more intense. After all, we only engage in passionate points of views with those we care about.

On a societal level, Coser observed that conflict defines the boundaries of groups and that clashes with outsiders energerizes members. Think of organizations that conduct “competitions” with other departments to motivate colleagues to work harder.

Coser also observes how conflict between groups can lead to intolerance within, as in “you’re either with us or against us.” Coser says leaders may engage in what he called “a search for enemies’ to bring a group together, solidify their identity, and motivate them to be intolerant of outsiders.” There have been too many examples of leaders who engaged in a search for enemies to build a solid group of loyal followers.

Are the destructive consequences of leaders who search for enemies unavoidable? One participant remarked it may require a World War or alien invasion to unite a society torn apart by such ideology.