It does not stop to amaze me how many people with no training nor experience in mediation tell me they do it all the time, “it’s just problem solving” they tell me. And, even if they look for one they are amazed a mediator wants to get paid so they can provide the service. One of members of a panel I moderate for a series of videos we are producing reminded me of the history of mediation way back to the time when we were first a rural, then a village, society – the trusted elder who not only had the experience and group wisdom, but also the authority to kind of mediate. In today’s urbanized setting we form relationships with total strangers through contracts and other commitments. We may not know our neighbor until such time as there’s a policeman at the door talking to us about a complaint. We can get into an accident with someone we don’t know and not only that but we have to deal with their insurance company to resolve our claim. In too many situations when we need help we assume we need an advocate for our position plus litigation. Many of us don’t know we have choices we can make.  Those choices include direct negotiations and failing that we can seek out a professional third party who offers both us and our opponent the ability to maintain control of decision making in an environment of mediation.  For simple matters we can go to low cost community based assistance at our volunteer community mediation centers. For more complex or where there are substantial amounts in question opponents need to seek out qualified professionals who do require a fee in order to provide their services.

Either at the community based or fee paid level, we expect professionalism and we seek finality in resolution.  In simple matters and at times it can be as simple as being in the presence of a mediator while at other times we expect a more pro-active approach and even a level of creativity, focus, and drive. No matter how hard driven we are in a mediation opponents do not give up choice to start, continue, resolve, or withdraw. If resolution can’t be reached then opponents can still give up choice and submit themselves to a court system. In mediation opponents can engage and use advocates like attorneys or experts to support their cases. Another factor to consider is timing – courts are jammed – attorneys must support other clients to make a living – and the ever present need for “discovery” – another time consuming and costly process. Then there’s the wrangling over who gets what – objections – motions – rules of evidence, etc. Not that opponents involved in mediation shouldn’t be ever mindful of supporting their positions when necessary with evidence. However, to a large extent mediation is still a negotiation which uses a third party and the thinking process is towards mutual agreement not convincing a judge or jury as to who’s right and who is wrong. Big difference, no? If there’s mutual agreement on resolution do you think the odds are better than an imposed, and potentially resisted judgment, that the agreement will hold?

“Educate and people will come”, that’s what my panel member said. That’s real wisdom. Involved in a conflict? Educate yourself and maintain your ability to choose. Choose mediation.