The virtues and versatility as well as the limitations of mediation, have been brought into focus in recent weeks. On the world’s stage, there is a complex negotiation over Iran’s potential nuclear capacity in the long- and short-term. In the Middle East, the mediator Martin Indyck resigned in frustration, leaving the Israeli/Palestinian conflict not only unresolved, but violent once again. In local news, a federal mediator’s recommendations were rejected by the union in the Long Island Rail Road labor dispute (though the dispute was resolved at the 11th hour thanks to face-to-face negotiations).
In our own practice, we continue to reflect on recurring themes and patterns in mediation. All of which leads us to address the question: What are the signposts for resolving conflict in mediation? That is, what are the ingredients for both the parties and the mediator—and they can be quite different—that increase the likelihood that parties will reach agreement? And, given that mediation is an elastic process, intended to bend to the needs of the parties while staying true to its essential tenets, how can such flexibility be employed so that parties have a greater chance of reaching agreement?
