How do you foster trust and rapport in mediation?

For me trust and rapport building begins at first contact, particularly in the pre medation meetings. It is constructed by the good housekeeping methods of the process and principles as mentioned by other contributor’s But the key ingredient I believe is when each person experiences the mediators effort to understand ( not agree with ) their view When they feel heard .

The above is a proper procedure. It should be combined with openness, friendliness and purpose with confidence by the mediator. The mediator is creating a non-threatening atmosphere to put the disputants at ease since this may be their first encounter with the art of mediation. If tensions are evident between the parties, the mediator must sense this quickly and do all possible to lower them. Establishing a strong rapport with the disputants, albeit a difficult task during an initial ADR session, is an important step. The skill is to balance rapport with mediator neutrality on the road to creating trust.

The more transparent and predictably structured a mediator can make the process, the more trust in them, and confidence in the process the parties are likely to have. As those who mediate well know, any process involving humans and their emotions is impossible to fully control, and is prone to the unexpected. Yet, in the early screening one-on-one meetings with the parties, I (as a family mediator) go over the expected steps in the mediation session ahead, to demistify the process, and to build the party's considence in my experience, and ability to stay at the helm. I also find that reminding the parties of my neutrality, throughout the session, helps.

One thing that I think most mediators don't do at this stage, but should is to discuss and acknowledge power dynamics if present, including the mediator themselves. If there are hierarchical working relationships involved, it plays a role in how the conflict came about and certainly in how the talks will go. Creating guidelines around how they want to talk through this can help the likelihood of success and lasting changes in behaviors beyond the discussion at hand.

The above is an excellent approach with the appropriate tactics to show that the mediator is actively listening. The key word is "active." The ADR specialist must connect with the disputants individually, as well as both parties as an organic whole. "My issues" morph into "our issues" with the mediator in the leader role. Empathetic listening sustains neutrality without compromising authenticity. The mediator keeps the process moving forward. Even the most trivial and boring details or oft repeated ones should be acknowledged within the flow of the session without getting sidetracked, confused or tangled up in tangents.

Yes, this is so important to use right from the beginning. If given a supportive, non-judgmental, compassionate environment, most people and couples will naturally move towards growth and collaboration instead of staying mired in conflict. You can literally see the tension dissipate from the room as each person feels heard.

Hi! Conflict resolution grad student here. During mediations, I like to blend my goofy personality into my professionalism and neutrality. I incorporate light humor and informality into my mediation style, especially when reflecting and summarizing. I do this to validate a party's emotions. I find that presenting myself authentically builds rapport, helps reduce tensions in the room, and sets the tone for an empathetic discussion.

Most people want to feel heard. As a mediator/facilitator getting each person's story in the ears of the other party may be key to settlement. Feeling heard is validating and using active listing, reflecting, and summarizing may be the first time any of them have soon good communication modeled.

I echo comments made by others here about the importance of active listening. While in theory, parties in a mediation understand the mediator is not a decision-maker in their dispute, they do feel a strong need to be heard - and to advocate for their positions in a sense, by setting out their grievances, including based on feelings/emotions. Allowing parties to do that is key in my view to building trust, and confidence in the process. As I have written elsewhere, mediation is an art in balancing the need of the parties to be heard while, on the other hand, ensuring the dialogue proceeds forward & at a reasonable pace. Active listening is not just blinking from time to time - it must necessarily involve actual engagement, a back and forth.

Again, these are solid ideas to apply in practice and to ponder in theory. A caucus is a powerful tool to listen further to emotional issues. A short break can be helpful to do the same. In the final analysis, ADR decisions are based on the acknowledgement and fulfillment of the business(the facts), the emotional and the "unmet" needs which surface during the session or are interpreted by the mediator. After the business needs are satisfied through the ADR process, the outcome is based on the realization of the emotional needs by both parties with the facilitation of the mediator. The mind is assuaged via hard facts, but the heart drives the final decision by the disputants.

Again, these are solid ideas to apply in practice and to ponder in theory. A caucus is a powerful tool to listen further to emotional issues. A short break can be helpful to do the same. In the final analysis, ADR decisions are based on the acknowledgement and fulfillment of the business(the facts), the emotional and the "unmet" needs which surface during the session or are interpreted by the mediator. After the business needs are satisfied through the ADR process, the outcome is based on the realization of the emotional needs by both parties with the facilitation of the mediator. The mind is assuaged via hard facts, but the heart drives the final decision by the disputants.

Cooperation is a challenge. When it surfaces, consider this a positive sign that the ADR process is moving forward. I suggest the substitution of "needs" for "interests" since the former is a stronger word. Needs outweigh "wants," a weaker description of the issues. The business, personal and unmet needs form the foundation of the emerging agreement. This is an artistic exercise. It is akin to a painting emerging from a blank canvas with strokes and color selections by the participants to depict an image that characterizes their emerging agreement. The painting is discussed from different perspectives to communicate their needs. The outcome, a masterpiece, is rooted in trust and mutual respect.

I find it is essential at this point to have established common ground at the beginning of the mediation - asking parties for what they want to achieve and then 'chunking up' until there is commonality. This is something parties can return to at the 'cooperation' stage after having gone through the 'chaos' stage of sharing their beliefs, thoughts, concerns and emotions.

Building trust and rapport for a mediation (or trial, or any proceeding) starts well before the proceeding. The sum total of trust you've built up with your client and your adversary to that time is the foundation. And this foundation will only be as good as the actual knowledge and integrity you've displayed to that point. There is clearly more to do in prep for the mediation itself --but the general point is that the impression you've built from inception of the client relationship, and case, is key to potential resolution of the case later on.

"Wordsmithing" is the skill that all parties share during the composition of the written agreement. The contributions, whether polished or basic, need to be acknowledged and included in the composition of the document. All contribute to the precise language that captures the essence of the mutually agreeable solution. Challenge the writing to ensure that the disputant's needs are acknowledged and addressed. Trust fuels the final stage of the facilitative mediation The process transfers the ownership of the dispute from the general to the specific with the mutually agreed solution formed by the disputants. The written agreement commits the participants to their cooperative, creative work. It is truly their work of art formed in trust.

Being genuine is important. It is important to come across as relatable. People in conflict don’t need someone to talk over their head. They need someone to talk directly to them so they have the ability to make an informed decision.

In contrast to court litigation, where participants often lack alignment towards a collective goal, mediation offers a unique opportunity to establish a shared objective and work collaboratively towards it. In family law cases, particularly those involving coparenting, the collective goal is the best interests of the children. While there may be differences in opinion on how exactly to achieve this goal, we have an obligation, in fact a moral obligation, to recognize that everyone involved shares this common objective. As a mediator, emphasizing this shared goal can help build trust and rapport among participants from the very beginning.

The people involved in the dispute must understand their voice is heard. Building trust is not easy, especially when there is no relationship between the mediator and the parties. A mediator only has a window of time to break barriers of conflict. It is necessary for a mediator to be relatable, which also builds trust.