How do you choose a neutral third-party for conflict resolution?

A couple of other scenarios when one might be looking to utilize third party help include when there is a real or perceived conflict of interest in handling the conflict internally or when lack of internal resources allow for a timely intervention. The latter often occurs when organizations are short staffed.

Conflict resolution is more art than science. It's akin to sewing a fine garment ~ it requires skill, patience, care but also imagination and finesse. A healthy blend of both hard and soft skills. The third party (in my discussion, a mediator) must have sufficient familiarity with the subject matter under discussion to be able to handle it with a degree of agility but should also have soft skills that respond to the unique needs of the dispute and its participants. In family law disputes, my area of work, this means being able to listen actively, pose questions with care, and to connect with the parties in a way that builds trust in the mediator, and confidence in the process. Thought should be given to these skills in advance.

My primary source of work as a family dispute mediator are referrals from other mediators, and counsel who have used me in the past. Each dispute requiring dispute resolution is unique - and each requires a slightly different blend of hard and soft skills. As part of networks, peer groups and professional organizations, we get to know colleagues with different skills and strenghts, and we get known as well, for our professional and personal style. Some matters require a mostly facilititative approach. Others will benefit from a more decisive, evaluative and directive hand. Another professional's actual experience with a mediator can be powerful feedback for your potential selection of that professional for your matter.

Such intereviews are possible but in my view, should be handled with care. I am not saying you should not do solid research on your proposed choice of mediator in advance ~ by reviewing their website, publications, blog posts and so on. You really should. But keep in mind that an in-advance interview with someone who is to be a neutral third-party can create a perception of loss of that neutrality, and I emphasize the word "perception". In family law disputes, for example, perception is often one of the drivers of the dispute. A party who learns the other side interviewed the mediator in advance, no matter how innocent that interview might actually have been, may get their back up. My suggestion is for both-lawyer interviews, if possible.

When I wear my family lawyer hat (as opposed to my family mediator hat), I often involve my client in the selection of a mediator for their matter. I gather information about our potential choices and share that info with my client ~ giving them a chance to review it on their own, and possiblity formulate their own questions for me or the professional. We then discuss our observations. This "team" approach to the selection gives the client an important sense of participation, and a voice in the ultimate choice. This, in turn, helps to build their confidence in the mediator and in the process. One of us may be more focussed on hard skills, the other on soft. As a team, we have a more balanced approach to the vetting process.