Mediation in 2025 - a discontinued model or a breakthrough? On the future prospects of mediation.

Mediative conflict mediation has always been important. It has good and bad times behind it - and ahead of it. This applies to all different areas of life: to large and small politics as well as in private organisations, in family and neighbourhood disputes. Bad times offer the opportunity to optimise mediation to suit the situation. To do this, you should critically reflect on your own concept and ask yourself what you have not taken sufficiently into account in recent years, in which aspects you have not reached some people, and what you should tackle in the future.

I have critically reconsidered my understanding-orientated concept of mediation with regard to its acceptability by potential conflict parties and come to various points, one of which I will focus on here; the Fundamental dilemma of relationship-promoting ("polite") communication behaviour and (risky) emotional truthfulness.

In the 80s and 90s, I had too little experience with serious conflicts in my conflict work in groups. In addition, I mainly worked as a mediator in academically educated circles. I was well received there and developed a highly differentiated, mindful language. However, I did not learn a simple, concise way of expressing myself. I was (and still am) a Relationship-promoting, appreciative language is more important than an honest portrayal of the negative emotional truth between the conflict parties and also my own current emotional state. The parties to the conflict occasionally expressed their astonishment at my "patience", which they could not muster themselves, or their ambivalent admiration for my "friendly" formulations when actively listening to them. Although I was able to "politely rephrase" their current feelings, I did not emphasise the strength of the negative feelings between them. I obviously didn't do justice to either side. The angry side felt "softened" ("I'm not 'annoyed', as you say, but I'm just boiling with anger!") and the other side felt misunderstood ("I don't just experience the other side as 'dominant'. They waste our time with endless waffle."). I also didn't show my own anger or frustration about some of the attitudes and behaviour of the conflict parties, e.g. in their frequent attempts to blame the other side, third parties or me for resolving the conflict.

I have found many mediators to be even more polite than me and now think that this socially acceptable image of mediation is seen as attractive by many conflict parties, but is also viewed critically at the same time. It is no wonder that mediation seems unrealistic to large parts of the population and often does not correspond to their conflict world of judges and rivals, victory and defeat, humiliation and hatred, or is too soft. In other words: I think that mediation has an honesty problem. The mediator stops the agitated dispute by controlling communication in a socially acceptable way in an emotionalised dispute context and thus the honest expression of the emotional truth of the situation. Mediation is based on the assumption that the different subjective perspectives of the parties involved are equally valid. Recognising different "truths" is essential for both sides to understand each other. But it collides with the conflict parties' - ambivalent - need for truthfulness in mediation. I have often sensed that this socially acceptable image of mediation does, on the surface, allay the fears of many conflict parties that it will lead to heated disputes. Underneath, however, it is experienced as dishonest politeness, which hardly provides a viable basis for realistic conflict resolution. I see this as a dilemma that I have long avoided at the expense of truthfulness.

20 years ago, I learnt how to work with my US-American colleague Jay Rohmanto ask the parties to the conflict to first try to resolve their points of conflict themselves in our presence for about half an hour. We would only intervene beforehand if they asked us to do so. By observing a longer interaction process, we were able to recognise their (different) emotional states and their dynamics in a more differentiated way and then name them more clearly than with the "short leash of active listening", which was and still is the order of the day in this step of the mediation process.

To reduce my tendency to use the expression own of negative feelings, the Behaviour of the former Finnish Prime Minister and Nobel Peace Prize winner Martti Ahtisaari in his political mediations. His conflict parties and co-mediators report that he was able to directly express his feelings of anger and impatience about the behaviour of the conflict parties in an unpleasant way (Ford, P.D. (2006). Got conflict? Mr Ahtisaari is your man. Christian Sci. Monitor (May 4), http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0504/p01s04-wogi.html [21.3.2021]). This obviously did not stand in the way of the success of his political mediations. His example gave me the courage to express my own frustration or anger in an appropriate way - albeit considerably weakened. With regard to the question of how spontaneous expression of negative feelings by mediators affects relationship building and conflict resolution as well as honesty and the mutual trust that builds on it, the (thin) research situation is contradictory (Zhang, T., Gino, F., Norton, M.I. (2017). The Surprising Effectiveness of Hostile Mediators. Management Science (63, 6):1972-1992. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2431 [25.9.2025]).

The recommendation of the theme-centred interactional method according to Ruth Cohn (Cohn, R. (1975). From psychoanalysis to theme-centred interaction. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.) to communicate selectively and authentically still seems to me to be a fruitful approach to the further development of mediation. It is clear to me that this does not sufficiently mitigate the dilemma. Mediation research would have to address it extensively, e.g. with regard to the fit with the (sub)cultures of the conflict parties. Because it also depends on which parties you are dealing with. A very mindful mediation style is likely to have a significantly different effect when dealing with conflicts in a church council than on the board of a rugby club. The conflicting communication styles of large population groups, which are currently causing problems for democratic societies, seem to me to have similar problems and, in my opinion, require separate consideration.

So: A mediator's communication style that is always friendly and emotionally controlled is not very authentic and is likely to limit the willingness to mediate. Addressing this dilemma seems to me to be a requirement for the further development of mediation. It could help mediation to correspond more and more to the reality of the diversity of human conflicts and thus promote its more frequent use.

There are several reasons why mediation is still a "niche product" in Europe. A lack of visibility, power asymmetries and the associated need for constitutional security and effective protection mechanisms as well as our legal culture of confrontation are just some of the factors behind this. Challenging geopolitical and economic times do not facilitate the broad acceptance of a conflict resolution approach that favours (self-)responsibility, fairness and building bridges. However, it would be wrong to "write off" mediation because of this. This is because it can be a constructive alternative to escalation and provocation, especially in power-laden constellations, and can help to bring social cohesion and the need for cooperation back into focus. After all, any solution is ultimately worth nothing if humanity and the endeavour to act sustainably have been lost along the way.

I see mediation as a way of resolving conflicts independently of global political trends and international strategies.

Just as appreciative and respectful interaction between people, groups and organisations in general will always have its own space and special justification. At the same time, I have the impression that - perhaps in contrast to political tendencies - a particularly pronounced mindfulness can be observed in the individual. This may also become more visible again in the political sphere with a time delay in the sense of a pendulum movement. Perhaps mediation is not and will not become the "usual alternative" for all types of conflict, but I am certain that it will retain and further expand its relevance as a sustainable solution in organisational and economic contexts as well as in private life and not just in certain educational circles, because the advantages of individual approaches are obvious.

Two short answers to the two questions framed by theses: 

1 Yes, mediation is becoming more popular, despite populism and war. 

2 Yes, mediation has perhaps seen its best days.

But what is encouragement? How do we want to measure the success of mediation (or counselling, therapy, coaching, ... - all of which strengthen the individual and their relationships and promote self-reflection and articulation) in society as a whole? 

Re 1.) My students are already familiar with popular communication techniques such as active listening, I-messages, NVC, etc. before their studies, schools train conflict mediators, companies refer to mediation services. Nobody seriously stumbles across the word mediation any more. Younger people are familiar with the idea of resolving conflicts without violence. This is at least an ideal, which was not the case in the past. And there is already expertise in this area. Cultural sociology shows that people today seem to have internalised exactly what mediation wants to help bring about in conflict: not the orientation towards the normal, the norm, the other, but towards the special, the uniqueness, the intrinsic value, the distinctiveness, the creative, self-responsible shaping of life. In Reckwitz's words, mediation fits into the social logic of singularisation.

Re 2.) There is not enough demand for training or programmes. There is (still) no specialised discourse, few references to each other, hardly any empirical mediation research. There is a mediation profession whose members - if they were categorised in the SINUS milieus - could perhaps only be located in three milieus. Mediation can (also) be instrumentalised. If you follow Bröckling, it can tie up energy where protest and rebellion would be more effective (and more important). There is a shortage and there are problems. - Perhaps there is not much more to come professionally.

I would therefore conclude that we should leave fantasies of success in the 00s and 10s. I think it makes more sense to recognise that the actions, thoughts and wishes associated with mediation were part of a powerful cultural development and will perhaps continue to be for some time to come.

In the face of war, the inevitable destruction of lives and living environments and the associated suffering, the question of its effects on the field of conflict resolution is certainly not the first one I have asked myself.

However, if I do get involved, I prefer to adopt a more optimistic perspective - on various levels.
As far as the concrete emergence of mediation cases on a very personal level is concerned, I find this rather easy. There is no shortage of case enquiries. For many years, I have received far more enquiries than I could handle - which is not the only reason why I am happy to have access to a large network of competent and experienced colleagues who then take over. Even beyond the volume of cases in my own immediate area, I experience stable to increasing case numbers in the fields in which I have an in-depth insight - in conflict resolution in companies, in cultural or political organisations, in voluntary areas, in education and research, in contexts of communal living, in the field of mediation in court. In this respect, I doubt the much-used narrative of the "scarce cake" and the lack of cases. Instead of complaining about a (supposed) shortage, it seems more productive to me for us as mediators to ask ourselves self-critically what we are not yet offering sufficiently or what we are not yet succeeding at sufficiently - so that people in specific conflicts experience mediation as beneficial and relieving.

As far as the international dimension addressed in the question is concerned, I find the optimistic perspective more difficult - in view of the war in Europe, but also because I am not an expert in this domain. I listen very carefully to my colleagues with specific expertise in this field. I assume that there is probably much more activity going on here than we realise. Behind the scenes, where there is usually the right place for the painstaking work of rebuilding destroyed trust and broken communication channels. With staying power, perseverance, a certain fearlessness - especially when dealing with aggressive approaches, setbacks and failure - with clear words and confidence.

In ten or twenty years' time, in retrospect, it will probably be easier to answer this question. For the time being, I prefer to remain optimistic. And to continue to assume that it is largely up to mediators to do their part to ensure that their contribution can be experienced as sufficiently meaningful - and in this respect, to constantly earn the hoped-for encouragement themselves.

The world turns differently when there is fear and worry in the room. With the prospect of a tangible reality of war that can no longer only be experienced in other distant parts of the world, but on our own doorstep in Western Europe, we have to deal with the value of peace, security and defence in society as we have not done for a long time. The generally high level of support for the reintroduction of compulsory military service among the population (e.g. Ipsos, Statista) shows: Peace can no longer be taken for granted as it was in previous decades. Of course, this was not the case before Russia's attack on Ukraine, if we look at other parts of the world and the fragility of global political uncertainties. However, it was possible to ignore the idea of war because it was not on the radar of the immediate reality of life in our and other Western European societies. 

In this area of tension, a process such as mediation, which is based on mutual understanding rather than power-orientated enforcement of interests, will find it difficult to gain a (greater) hearing in the future. The fact that it has not yet been able to assert itself as a "genuine" alternative to judicial dispute resolution or in armed conflicts is particularly evident in view of current developments. The question arises as to whether mediation can even be up-to-date in this climate - or whether its practice is degenerating into an anachronistic wish. 

Two thoughts on this: The imposition and confidence of mediation

Mediation challenges conflict parties to go against what are often instinctive impulses - and to focus on understanding instead. This makes it per se an imposition for dealing with fears, loss of control and the need for security. The fact that only a small number of the population (16% according to the Forsa survey) can imagine fighting in the event of war, compared to the high level of approval for the reintroduction of compulsory military service, also holds out the prospect of confidence in mediation and its development. The idea of war has become frighteningly real - and at the same time, people find armed conflicts rather unimaginable in their realisation. This goes hand in hand with a high level of awareness of the value of understanding in society. Study results ("Conflict Monitor" by ConflictA - University of Bielefeld) show high approval ratings that social and political conflicts should primarily be resolved through dialogue and compromise. 

In this socially mixed situation, hopes and fears are close companions of mediation: 

On the one hand, the confident belief in non-violent understanding through dialogue and compromise, and on the other, the fear of losing security and control, which makes mediation an imposition, especially in these times.

In order to strengthen the sparks of hope for mediation, the often lengthy, arduous and "quiet" successes of mediation practice - achieved on the political backstage - should be made visible in their results. For example, the ceasefire agreement between North and South Korea, which lasted for decades and was negotiated in more than 500 (!) meetings. Or the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel initiated by Jimmy Carter at Camp David in the 1970s.