Mediators Are Human Too

Back in the day, when I was starting my mediation practice, I received the worst advice ever. It came from someone who, I believe, meant well. The advice was that I should let the world know I was a mediator by modelling neutrality. In everything I did.

Why was this bad advice? Because that is impossible! No human being can be neutral about everything, nor should they pretend that they can be.

Also, how can someone expect to successfully market themselves absent any personality? The individual who gave me the advice may have meant well but failed to grasp what makes mediators appealing to prospective clients and their representatives.

I quickly came to learn that the best mediators are their authentic selves. They lean into what makes them unique as they market, offer and deliver their services.

A mediator need not be opinion-less. They simply should not have an interest in the outcome of the dispute they are mediating. The key is remaining detached, not being impacted by any potential conclusion of the matter.

Suggesting a mediator should be without views is asking them to be inauthentic. Fake. Such an ask of mediators is really suggesting that they hide their opinions, because it is not possible to be without them. While mediators are often wise to heed the advice of Taylor Swift and think some things they never say, that applies to the conflict at hand. Not everything in life. The point is that human beings hold values, emotions and beliefs.

This concept of the role of neutrality in mediators gets confused when those with an interest in an issue attempt to step into the role of mediator. I have written about this previously, aging myself by offering an example from the television show Friends where Ross intervenes to make peace between Monica and Chandler for his own selfish reasons. Another example offers a realtor swooping in to help address an issue that risks de-railing a closing… to save their commission.

Mediation is designed to be facilitated by someone a layer removed from the dispute. It is that layer of distance that allows them to approach the matter from a place of impartiality and therein lies the benefit of bringing in the neutral facilitator.

The notion that a mediator should be impartial about everything, in addition to being impossible, is absurd. The very sentiment leads to ridiculous internal torment within many practicing mediators about the disputes that they experience personally and the sports teams they cheer for.

Mediators sometimes feel pressure to pretend that they live their lives conflict-free. Yet, conflict is a natural part of life for everyone.

At its worst, this offers folks opposing mediators in their personal conflicts the illusion that they have a “card” they can play against them. The idea that a vulnerability exists in exposing that a mediator has a personal conflict, based on the false belief that mediators should never. This type of ‘BS’ can cause new mediators a great deal of unnecessary stress.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that experiencing personal conflict actually helps mediators better empathize with their clients and appreciate the different perspectives and approaches that they encounter when rendering their services, allow me to state what should by now be obvious… mediators cannot be the mediator of their own personal conflicts because they have an interest in the outcome.

Mediators have drama, bad days and arguments. Mediators can throw down, call people names and get agitated. Mediators get divorced. They are simply not acting as a mediator as they do.

Note: Marc Bhalla is an instructor at Osgoode Hall Law School’s Master of Laws in Dispute Resolution Program and the York University School of Continuing Studies’ Certificate in Dispute Resolution. The views expressed in this column are from Marc’s capacity as a teacher and supporter of aspiring and new dispute resolution practitioners.