The role of mediation in dispute resolution
Wanting to learn more about the role of mediation in dispute resolution, we spoke to dispute resolution expert Jeremy Lack. We quickly discovered that this was a subject that was as complex as it was interesting. That’s why we decided to divide our interview over two editions of the newsletter. You can read part one here . And below is part two, which looks closer at how the three main aspects of mediation – “there’s a social component, an emotional, and a rational component,” says Jeremy – relate to issues such as confidentiality, trust building, and the psychological tools and barriers to mediation.
Let’s continue by talking about confidentiality in mediation; how should that be handled?
It is important to understand the level of confidentiality required by the parties in each case, as this can vary depending on the nature of the dispute and the individuals involved. In general, there are two levels of confidentiality in mediation to consider. There’s confidentiality vis-à-vis the outside world, which relates to the existence of the dispute, the existence of the process itself and what was said during the process. The principle is that whatever happens in mediation should not be admissible in any other proceedings. And then there’s the confidentiality of what happens within the mediation itself to ensure what is disclosed by one participant in a private session is not repeated to another participant without prior consent.
This can include questions relating to the need for confidentiality as between those who attend the mediation and those who do not, even if they are involved. As for mediators themselves, depending on which organisation they are affiliated to or the country they may be regulated by, confidentiality may vary, it being a professional obligation in most countries, but not everywhere.
There can also be confusion in some high-profile cases between the desire for transparency regarding the final outcome, and the need for the confidentiality of the negotiations that led to that outcome. By belonging to the International Mediation Institute, for example, a mediator is automatically bound by a code of conduct that automatically entails strict confidentiality worldwide.
Besides professional affiliations, in your opinion, what character traits does a good mediator possess?
Inquisitiveness, curiosity and the ability to ask open-ended questions are important attributes for a good mediator, along with the ability to leave your ego at the door and truly listen with an open mind. There is also a social component: one of the most difficult things can be getting meaningful conversations going between people who haven’t spoken much or who greatly distrust or are angry with one-another, to help them get through the process together. This is particularly important if the disputants may need to continue working together in the future, or if they work in a close-knit ecosystem where they are likely to meet again. A mediator must also know when to follow and when to lead. A good mediator is analogous to a good bus driver: they need to make sure they know where the travellers are headed, that all the passengers are on board, and that everyone reaches their intended destination.
And what methods do you use to create an environment of trust and collaboration?
In a mediation, you want to come with open questions and have all of the participants feel equally seen and heard. You want to find out as much as you can about the needs, interests, concerns, and motivations of everybody involved. This is because, the more you understand their underlying goals, beyond the positions they may have taken, the more room there is for a solution. Exchanging information on such subjective factors often helps promote a sense of trust and collaboration.
There’s an arsenal of tools you can use; the more you know when and how to use all the tools, the better off you are, adjusting to whatever is needed, which calls for flexibility.
Is mediation almost a psychological exercise?
Yes. I am not a psychologist, but for me, there are three different aspects to mediation that could be described as psychological. There’s a social component, an emotional component, and a rational component. The mediator has to build on all three of these aspects, which can require different psychological approaches. Mediation is not a form of therapy, however. We don’t try to change people or their behaviour. We try and help focus their attentions in situations of conflict on what truly matters now, what their alternatives are, and what options are available and most likely to better resolve the conflict more holistically, keeping an eye on the future.
Is mediation suited to everyone? Are there any psychological barriers to overcome?
It is rare that mediation is ill-suited to a dispute. It is an excellent complement to litigation and arbitration in almost all cases. There are all sorts of psychological barriers to mediation, however. First, people tend to think they are good negotiators, and if they could not reach a settlement, a mediator is unlikely to add any value. The statistics, however, are that over 70% of mediations (which almost always involve failed past negotiations) settle. Another of these is the fear of looking weak, the concern that: “If I say I want to mediate, it looks like I want to settle”. There can also be the belief that the other party will act in bad faith; or that mediation simply entails replacing one already-breached agreement with another. Mediated settlement agreements are rarely not complied with, however, and there is growing interest in being able to have them recognised and enforced internationally under the Singapore Convention or under the New York Convention.
There may also be a general feeling of distrust of the mediation process from lawyers and judges who are not used to it, and a preference for more traditional procedures, but the reality is that most lawyers and judges agree that traditional access to justice on its own tends to take too long, be too expensive or destructive.
Where does conciliation fit into the dispute resolution mix? How does it differ from mediation?
Conciliation and mediation both involve negotiation facilitated by a neutral third party, yet they differ significantly in role, structure, impact, and focus. They are ‘first cousins’ rather than ‘siblings’,each suited to distinct contexts and objectives.
Conciliation is typically a structured, evaluative process, often mandated by courts, particularly in civil-law jurisdictions, aimed primarily at financial settlements without ongoing relationships. The conciliator assesses legal merits, reality-tests positions, and frequently proposes settlements. This formal structure tends to activate competitive dynamics (‘out-of-group’ heuristics), prompting parties to position themselves strategically, anticipating and trying to influence the conciliator's recommendations.
Conciliation usually yields lower settlement rates (50–60% in court-mandated settings). In contrast, mediation is facilitative, flexible, and less formal, emphasising dialogue and self-determination. Mediators typically refrain from proposing settlements, instead activating ‘in-group’ heuristics that encourage empathy, collaborative behaviour, and greater mutual understanding. Mediation effectively addresses emotional and relational elements, making it ideal for commercial, family, or complex cross-border disputes where ongoing relationships matter, often achieving higher settlement rates (70–90%). In summary, conciliation assesses positions and is mainly appropriate for resolving purely financial disputes without future relationship considerations, while mediation fosters collaboration, empathy, and durable agreements, particularly when relationships and subjective interests are important. When combined using two separate ADR neutrals, they provide almost 100% settlement rates.
We understand that you have participated in research into the neuroscience of mediation. Can you tell us more about that?
I am fortunate to have collaborated with a group of neuroscientists at the University of Geneva's Centre for Interdisciplinary Affective Sciences (CISA) to help them design and implement experiments related to neuroscience and mediation. Although the neuroscience of mediation is very much in its early days, the more we look at the human brain, we are discovering a whole new understanding of human behaviour, in particular social, emotional and rational heuristics, particularly in the context of conflict, negotiation and mediation. As an example: the results of experiments where couples with recurring conflicts were asked to negotiate with each other or with a mediator present showed measurable differences in social and brain behaviour. This
demonstrated that mediation, compared to negotiation, leads to higher satisfaction rates, settlement rates, and a greater sense of inclusion.
How can findings from neuroscience help mediators and the mediation process?
This increased understanding definitely has the potential to change the dynamics of mediation. I believe that as we learn more from neuroscience, mediators should be made aware of the concepts of social, emotional and cognitive plasticity, to better understand and help parties to understand and manage their emotions, social behaviour and cognitive biases in situations of conflict. For mediators working today, understanding these systems and techniques may facilitate more skilful interventions, allowing what seemed impossible before to become possible now.
