Hoffman: The Art of Impasse-Breaking in Mediation

By John Sturrock
This article has been republished with permission. The original article can be located at Kluwer Mediation Blog.

David Hoffman is a very highly regarded US mediator and an equally authoritative Harvard academic, whose writing about mediation and conflict resolution is always rich and thoughtful. Thus, his book about ‘The Art of Impasse-Breaking in Mediation’ promises much and it certainly delivers.

The underlying theme of the book is achieving fair, efficient, stable and wise solutions. Its aim is to enable mediators, lawyers and other conflict resolvers to fill their toolboxes with techniques for breaking impasses and help people to turn conflict into creative solutions – and to equip them to do the important work of peacemaking more effectively.

The book, written with Hoffman’s customary humility and respect for parties in conflict, is easy to read and full of helpful advice. It serves as both reassurance for experienced mediators, who will recognise many of the author’s suggestions, and an excellent resource for any mediator, whether starting out in practice or looking to add new strategies to their repertoire after years of experience. Hoffman is able to draw on his own years of experience to illustrate his points with pithy stories (his own and those of other mediators) and this adds greatly to the book’s utility. I also found the footnotes useful as pointers to further reading and as evidence of Hoffman’s deep understanding of the field.

Some of the most interesting and helpful earlier sections of the book deal with the emotional and psychological aspects of mediation – there is “no more important area for continuing education” – and the author’s frequent references to the Internal Family Systems Model emphasise how useful he finds this model in practice, to assist mediators in our understanding of, and compassion for, both parties in conflict and ourselves as mediators. It enables the mediator to handle the ambivalence experienced by many of those in conflict where both anger and pragmatism can be strong forces.

Encouraging parties to listen to their “inner mediator” to discover what they can live with enables “Self-led decisions” to be reached, consistent with mediation’s fundamental principles of empowerment and self-determination. I found the sections on Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow, Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind and cognitive biases particularly helpful, together with the later discussion of Kahneman’s work with Amos Tversky on risk tolerance and risk aversion, in a chapter which also addressed topics such as loss of face and issues of principle.

We often hear mediation described as taking place in the shadow of the law. However, the author underscores his repeated advice not to demonise conflict, courts, judges and the rule of law by preferring the expression “in the light of the law”. That is a nice reframe!

In the chapter on process options, we are reminded that, in the words of a colleague, “Every mediation has a beginning, a middle, and an end, but not always in that order.” How true! As is the admonition that if mediators are working harder than the parties to break an impasse, they are working too hard. In that chapter, topics include the use of humour, food, silence, stories and metaphor. Mediators will recognise the difficulty faced by mediators when lawyers expect them to play the “agent of reality” role. And the sections on transparency and authenticity – who we are as people – remind us of our underlying values and that it is ok to be a little nervous and vulnerable at times as we “show up fully as our true selves” in a mediation. We can be, after all, “a positive model for the people whose disputes we are mediating.”

That the chapter on substantive interventions is the longest in the book underscores the richness of its content, with many techniques shared for use in a wide range of situations. Hoffman describes his style as “eclectic” and recognises that, for some, the suggestions here may seem too directive or evaluative (I was interested in Hoffman’s definitions of facilitative mediation as “facilitated negotiation” and evaluative/directive mediation as “assisted negotiation”). Wisely, he counsels that any potential intervention should be presented “with curiosity” as to its appropriateness for the parties and their conflict and might be framed as questions to assist the parties to find their own solutions. Most of the described interventions are money-related but there are non-monetary aspects discussed too and the concluding section and story on ‘A Lagniappe’ – something unexpected and gratuitous – is heart-warming.

In the penultimate chapter on techniques to avoid, the author refers to Judge Wayne Brazil’s reminder that a mediator’s “overarching mandate is not to secure a settlement but to proceed with a visible integrity that inspires the respect and confidence of all participants.” We are not stakeholders in settlement but enablers of the making of wise choices by parties. And of course, as Hoffman writes in his concluding chapter, “settlements are, paradoxically, more likely to occur the less attached I am to achieving them.”

Overall, this is an exceptional addition to the literature on mediation and a ‘must-buy’ for any mediator (and peacemaker) who wishes to expand their repertoire of skills and techniques.

Author Biography

John Sturrock KC is the founder and senior mediator at Core Solutions. He is a pioneer of mediation throughout the UK and elsewhere with his work extending to the commercial, professional, sports, public sector, policy and political fields. He is a Distinguished Fellow Emeritus of the international Academy of Mediators and was also formerly a mediator with Brick Court Chambers in London. John also specialises in facilitation, negotiation and conflict management training and coaching for public sector leaders, civil servants, politicians, and sports and business leaders. He has worked with various parliamentary bodies throughout the UK on effective scrutiny of policy, and led a major review for the Scottish Government into allegations of bullying and harassment in the national health service in Scotland. He also founded Collaborative Scotland, a non-for-profit promoting nonpartisan respectful dialogue about difficult issues. John also has published two volumes of his book, A Mediator’s Musings (available on Amazon).

Connect with John via LinkedIn

Oxymorons R Us

John Lande, JD, PhD
This post is republished with permission. The original article is published within the University of Missouri School of Law the Legal Studies Research Paper Series.

In ‘Evaluative Mediation’ is an Oxymoron, Kim Kovach and Lela Love argued that evaluative mediation described in the famous Riskin Grid is a contradiction in terms – essentially not really mediation or the way that mediation should be. Len Riskin responded, “It is too late for commentators or mediation organizations to tell practitioners who are widely recognized as mediators that they are not, in the same sense that it is too late for the Pizza Association of Naples, Italy to tell Domino’s that its product is not the genuine article.”

Although I share Len’s perspective, this article is not about what should or should not be legitimately considered as mediation.

Rather, this article argues that the concepts of facilitative and evaluative mediation themselves are oxymorons. I analyzed problems with these concepts in various pieces in Part 3 of the Real Practice Systems Project Annotated Bibliography (Including the classics Confusing Dispute Resolution Jargon, Houston, We Have a Problem in the Dispute Resolution Field, and “Labels Suck”). So I will not repeat those critiques here.

This article riffs on comments at an excellent program during the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution’s annual conference to illustrate how oxymoronic these terms have become. It suggests ways that we in the dispute resolution field can decide to avoid speaking oxymoron.

Mediators’ Proposals

The ABA program described techniques for making mediators’ proposals. This procedure usually is a last resort after extended unsuccessful efforts to reach agreement. Typically, it is used in high-stakes cases where both sides are represented by attorneys. The parties want to settle but worry that one or both sides are taking unreasonable positions. The procedure can help parties feel more confident in their decisions.

Mediators make these proposals only if both sides agree to the procedure. Indeed, some mediators use the procedure only if suggested or requested by one or both of the parties. Mediators gives a proposal confidentially to each side. It reflects their perception of the terms that both sides would accept. It is not a prediction about the likely court outcome if the case were adjudicated.

If both sides accept the proposal, they have an agreement. If either or both parties reject the proposal, there is no agreement. A party that rejects the proposal doesn’t know if the other party has accepted it or not.

As this description illustrates, this is a specific procedure that the parties agree to, not a unilateral casual suggestion by a mediator.

Two Oxymorons

During the discussion, one person referred to mediators “facilitatively” making a proposal. Another person described mediators “empowering” the parties by asking how much risk they were willing to take. For example, if plaintiffs are willing to take more risk that the defendants would not accept the proposal, the mediators would propose a higher amount. If the plaintiffs were willing to take less risk, the mediators would propose a lower amount.

In the definitive publication defining facilitative and evaluative mediation, facilitative mediation, includes helping parties develop and exchange proposals (in contrast to evaluative mediation where mediators may propose agreement). Thus, by definition, mediator proposals are inherently evaluative and can’t be facilitative.

A recent article by Robert A. Baruch Bush, a founder of transformative theory, identifies the goals and purposes of transformative mediation as “[s]upport[ing] parties in changing their conflict interaction from negative / destructive to positive / constructive; help them recapture strength and understanding.” It requires mediators to “[p]rivilege party decision-making on all matters – content and process.” The reason for this approach is to promote “party empowerment and interparty recognition.” The article states that the “emphasis in the transformative framework on party empowerment opposes any effort by the mediator to bring the parties toward reconciliation.”

Arguably, mediators making proposals and inquiring about their preferred level of risk is transformative by asking about parties’ preferences about the procedure. However, it is designed to promote agreement and it is not designed to promote empowerment or constructive interactions between the parties. Nor is it how mediators generally understand transformative theory.

Presumably, members of the audience kinda, sorta, probably understood what the speakers meant by using the terms “facilitative” and “empower.”

But why misuse terms from traditional mediation theory when there is plain language that expresses these ideas more clearly and without contradicting traditional theory?

How You Can Avoid Speaking Oxymoron

As a public service, this article provides the following suggestions to help you avoid the embarrassment of speaking oxymoron. These suggestions have the added value of making our language intelligible to civilians.

Instead of using the term “facilitative,” we might say the following, adapted from Riskin’s original account:

  • Helps parties develop ideas and proposals
  • Helps parties evaluate ideas and proposals
  • Asks parties about consequences of not settling
  • Asks parties about likely court or other outcomes if they don’t settle
  • Asks parties about the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments

Note that these are very different techniques. Mediators often use some but not all of them in a given case.

Listening to people using the term, however, they kinda, sorta, probably mean some of the following:

  • Is friendly and respectful
  • Helps parties understand their case and their options
  • Doesn’t (explicitly) pressure parties

Here are the elements of “evaluative” mediation from Riskin’s article:

  • Urges / pushes parties to accept settlement
  • Develops and proposes agreements
  • Predicts court outcomes and consequences of not settling
  • Assesses strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case

Again, these are different techniques and mediators who are allegedly evaluative don’t use all of them in a given case. When people use the term, they kinda, sorta, probably mean some of the following:

  • Is aggressive
  • Doesn’t listen to parties
  • Pressures parties to accept the mediators’ ideas

Bush’s description of empowerment is included above. When people use the term “empowerment,” they kinda, sorta, probably mean that the mediator helps parties understand their case and options so that they feel more informed, confident, and assertive and thus can protect their own interests.

Maybe people mean other things when they use the traditional terms of facilitative, evaluative, and empowerment. Who knows? When people use these terms, we don’t really know what they actually mean. We kinda, sorta, probably think we know. But we don’t really know.

As so-called communication experts, it would be nice if we could speak and write so that people actually do know what we mean.

A radical concept.

Try it. You’ll like it.

Author Biography

John Lande, JD, PhD is the Isidor Loeb Professor Emeritus at the University of Missouri School of Law and former director of its LLM Program in Dispute Resolution. He earned his JD from Hastings College of Law and his PhD in sociology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Since 1980, John has practiced law and mediation in California, and since the 1990’s, he has directed a child protection mediation clinic.

The American Bar Association has published John’s books, including ‘Lawyering with Planned Early Negotiation: How You Can Get Good Results for Clients and Make Money‘ and ‘Litigation Interest and Risk Assessment: Help Your Clients Make Good Litigation Decisions‘ (co-authored with Michaela Keet and Heather Heavin).

John frequently writes for the Indisputably blog and has received many awards for his scholarship, most recently the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution’s award for outstanding scholarly work. You can download articles on a wide range of dispute resolution topics from his website.