Mediators often work with people who say they simply can’t communicate with their opposing party.

The complaints are typical: “I can’t get through to them” or “They won’t listen to reason.” Sometimes mediators can offer a few simple words of advice that can go a long way to opening up communication between the parties.

Some simple suggestions that mediators might make include:

First: “Have you considered taking a recess from arguing and trying to persuade them that they’re wrong?

Second: “Have you verbalized what you understand their position to be?” Many times participants discover they didn’t fully hear or understood the other person’s position. Reaching agreement of each other’s position is a critical necessary step to move forward.

Third: Attempt to develop some empathy by asking “If you were to find yourself in the same situation as they are, could you see how they might feel the way they do?” This is not to ask the person to agree with the other person, but to begin to understand how the other person developed the position they are advocating.

Fourth: Separate feelings about the person from their position. Being able to do this can lead to “an agreement to disagree” with mutual respect.

Finally, if the parties are willing to proceed I ask, “Is there anything we can agree on today?” It is not unusual for parties to find a small aspect they can agree upon and then find themselves willing to go further.

Some people who have no experience with mediation assume it’s similar to a trial or an arbitration—particularly regarding the use of evidence and witnesses.

Remember, in a trial or arbitration you and your attorney will need to present arguments, evidence, and witnesses to persuade the judge, jury, or arbitrators of your position. Evidence and witnesses are very important in those arenas to establish what happened. This demonstrates trials and arbitrations are focused on the past, on what happened, which is a major contrast to mediation.

That’s because mediation generally focuses on the future concerned with what the opposing parties do moving forward. They may never agree as to what happened in the past; they may never agree as to who, if anyone, is to blame, but they can agree on how to proceed once an agreement has been reached.

Unfortunately, some people come to mediation not understanding this critical difference. I’ve heard parties say “when the mediator sees my evidence they will agree with me.” Actually, that’s not the mediator’s role at all. Typically, mediators will encourage parties to share what evidence they have, but they’ll focus the discussion on how best to resolve the issue and move on.

I’ve had parties come to mediation clutching photographs and documents “to prove their case.” Others have brought witnesses to the session, again, treating the process like a court case.

Being able to “let go” of the past and focus on the future, as well as understanding what mediation offers compared to a legal setting, is a challenge for some people, but necesary to appreciate the benefits mediation offers to all involved.