5 reasons why 9 out of 10 mediators cannot make a living from conflict mediation.
While running today, various conversations were going through my head as I thought about our next contribution to Detector.fm thought about. (You can find the radio reports here.) And I found myself in the same mood that I often feel when I'm surrounded by mediators and reading essays: anxiety and a lack of understanding. And then I want to speak up: That's not how it works. Really not!
That's not how it works. Really not!
Instead, however, today's blog post deals with the problem that practising mediators do not have enough to do, even though there is plenty to do.
1)…because the parties to the conflict do not trust you to be a solution to their problems.
The first truth is that Mediators are under observation - from the first minute they are googled. If it comes to that at all. Mediators must work to ensure that their services are recognised and that they are seen as competent. Yes, you read that right: Expertise describes not so much the characteristics of the person, but the Attributions by others. But the parties to the conflict do not (yet) see sufficient reasons to engage mediators, even though there are enough conflicts and unfortunate experiences! Truth.
2)…because they tell the conflict parties right at the beginning that they will not solve their problem.
What do mediators in 90% cases learn first in training programmes? That they don't have to resolve the conflict. The parties have to find the solution themselves (attention! self-responsibility motorway!) Mediators are very teachable.
They hardly ever forget to emphasise on their websites right at the beginning of the mediation, well, actually even beforehand, that they have no solution to the conflict. Yes, what are the conflicted people supposed to do with it? They come in worry, full of stress and resentment, not without anger and disappointment, but certainly desperate. And they want a solution to their problem. And the mediator clearly and repeatedly tells them the opposite! Great. Set. Five.
„I am not responsible for resolving the conflict. You are the experts. But I am happy to accompany you on your search…“
This is by no means merely a question of marketing, but of empathy, of Empathysomething that mediators believe they are experts in! Well, you can't really find out. It's simply too rare for mediators to be able to prove it. In any case, you can continue to claim that mediators are really good at empathy.
3)…Because they believe that people are not ready yet.
It is not uncommon, especially among lawyer-mediators, to find that people want to argue and often do, beat you to a pulp want. That's what they experience in their day-to-day work as lawyers, clients who come to the office looking for a clever legal mercenary. The „other kind“ of mediators think that people are simply not yet ready to recognise the Blessings of mediation to recognise the beauty of peace and harmony, prisoners of the system.
Both fail to recognise that the legal system is a constitutive prerequisite for mediation. Without law, no mediation! (You can find out more about this in this blog post.)
Without law, no mediation!
Admittedly, law is an important (cohesive) pillar of our society. And its good practice also holds us all together to a certain extent. Nevertheless, it can be experienced everywhere that people change when they recognise a sufficient advantage, a benefit that outweighs the disadvantages. How does mediation compare with the legal search for a solution?
The question arises as to who is for what and how far!
4)…Because they often recite a Christmas poem at Easter.
Mediation is versatile, can be many things and is therefore not very concrete. This has advantages and disadvantages. For mediators, however, this raises a decision question: How do I conduct my mediations, how do I mediate? What is my style? Basically, there are Two major directions differentiate. There is the enabling style and the evaluating style.
(You can find a detailed article on the individual mediation styles here.)
The enabling style aims to bring the parties to the conflict to a situation in which they can make a joint decision about what they will do together. With the facilitative mediation style (the technical term), the issues in dispute are worked through together so that they can be decided jointly without escalation.
The evaluative style (evaluative style) assesses the stringency of the argumentation and the individual points of view from a neutral standpoint using an objective standard. In legalised issues, the evaluative style of mediation often resembles a judicial conciliation hearing. The parties to the conflict use this approach so that they can then decide for themselves what they will do.
However, mediators are practically only human beings. They endeavour to act consistently and believe they have to decide on a style. Sometimes they do not consider an evaluative approach to be legitimate and certainly not mediative, sometimes they believe they have to evaluate because that is what they want. They cannot even imagine that the facilitating approach is also „real work“. In both cases, mediators act with a much too narrow mental frame of reference and have not yet grasped the mental freedom that they expect from their mediators.
5)…Because, as a result of the first four reasons, they devalue themselves, their services and the conflicts of their potential customers.
Nobody wants to buy mediation on the cheap. What does the cheap price say about the conflict? The price is always an indicator of the value. If the problem is worth nothing, the solution cannot be expensive. This is even more true for a conflict. But sometimes mediators have the idea that their good service to humanity should not cost anything. Well, those who devalue so much must overvalue elsewhere: this is what happens with mediation itself, which is presented as the „royal road to conflict resolution“, to remedy all the inhumanities and systemic flaws of socialised legal societies and to be the true key to humanity. Well, little could be further from the truth.
At best, mediation is simply a solution to a (conflict) problem. There must be clarity about both things, the solution and the problem, if they are to fit together. Mediators are on a path of testing and trying to find out exactly that. In doing so, the value can only become clearer – and with it the quality of mediators.
Well, that was my view of the current situation. Why do you think mediators have difficulties in utilising their product in a commercially appropriate way? I look forward to hearing your opinion.
Great article that points to a complex problem. I know point 2 from my communicative work with coaches. They also always emphasise that they don't offer any solutions, but come up with empty phrases a la help for self-help. And are surprised when nobody calls. I believe that the rules of marketing are clashing here with assumptions and aspects of the substantive work of mediation and that levels are being mixed up that do not belong together. If you look at it in a good light, it's actually simple: clients have a psychological pressure or desired state that can be addressed. Service providers have references and exciting projects about which they provide targeted and systematic information. One of the most important tasks of communication is the possibility of self-positioning: is this something for me? Can they support me? Is it useful? If the service provider (for whatever reason) then seems to turn away, even a fancy brochure won't help. And empathy and marketing are not mutually exclusive, are they?
Thank you very much, Gunnar, for your clarifying comment, which once again makes the core clear to me. Empathy and marketing...there's music in that, Gunnar! It's the two perspectives that clash, an (apparent) conflict of perceived incompatibilities: I see the world through the eyes of others (empathy), but from my own perspective when it comes to money (marketing). But isn't it precisely marketing that emphasises the empathetic approach?
Incidentally, an interesting discussion has developed on Facebook about this article here, in which some mediators have presented their views on the topic - controversial and instructive.
… My favourite part is the 5th point and the sentence: Mediators are only human. And that expresses so much of what you have described!