Some parties in mediation simply can’t find a resolution.

What happens next?

First of all, recognize that mediators do not consider this development a failure. Even if the parties do not reach a formal agreement, they had an opportunity to express their positions and demands without interruption, to consider alternatives, and to consider their relationship and how they communicate with one another

There are several options to keep things moving forward:

• Give it time. Conditions and situations change, unless they need to be resolved immediately.

• The parties can attempt negotiation without a mediator.

• The parties can attempt another mediation.

• The parties can resort to formal litigation.

Finally, a more powerful alternative could be considered: Simply, “letting go.” Letting go does not mean you’re moving on, but it prevents the conflict from influencing your interactions with others. This option requires self-awareness and a commitment to yourself to act in your best interest.

Consider this historical example: In the 1950s Nelson Mandela was the youth leader of the African National Congress in segregated South Africa. Charged with sabotage, Mandela was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. After 27 years in prison Mandela was released. He could have harbored feelings of resentment and hatred of the White population and plan retaliation. Mandela was truly able to “let go.” He befriended his White Afrikaner prison guards; he went to church with them; he forgave the White South African government for imprisoning him. In his autobiography “Long Walk to Freedom,” he wrote that if he hated them after being freed, they would still have him. He wanted to be free, so he let it go. In an astonishing moment it changed his life.

Sometimes just letting go of a conflict provides freedom and piece of mind.

Mediators often hear allegations that a party in the session is lying.

What is intended by being untruthful? Is it common in negotiations? How do mediators address it?

First, lying deliberately, whether verbal or nonverbal, can cause acceptance about something that isn’t true. A lie, then, can be of commission, as well as omission, or intentionally withholding relevant information. A lie can also be paltering or carefully worded statements that are true, but used to intentionally mislead. Bluffing or overstating and exaggerating facts is also a form of lying.

With such a broad definition, it’s no surprise you’ll find mediators who say most people lie during dispute resolutions. In fact, a Harvard Business Review article once argued that bluffing is “just part of the game of business.” Some argue bluffing is morally permissible because parties enter negotiations expecting the practice as a tactic

Mediators are not factfinders, judges, nor juries, and won’t challenge lies directly. However, if a party tells the mediator one thing in confidence and then contradicts it during a negotiation session, such a development may lead the mediator to simply stop the process.

When I deal with parties who are in disagreement over what they consider the “facts,” my approach is to say although there’s disagreement, our purpose with mediation is not to determine who is right or wrong, but what we’re going to do to find resolution and move forward.

While parties may never fully agree, they can still come to an agreement that enables them to do so.