Do not push parties past their comfort zone or pressure them to respond to a question. As already stated in previous Newsletters …

• Ensure parties know from the outset that the mediation process is voluntary, that they can leave whenever they wish and that they do not have to respond to any of your questions.
• Hold separate initial meetings with each party where challenging questions can be explored and you will then be able to determine if it is ok to ask these challenging questions at the joint session.
• Ask permission of them before you ask a ‘hard’ question: ‘I am unsure if this might be a hard question for you, so I would like to ask for your permission to ask it, please and then you don’t need to respond if you wish?’
• If they say ‘No’ then you need to accept this but if you think the question is crucial to the process you could hold a separate meeting and let them know that the purpose is not to convince and pressure them to stay, but to explore their needs around that question.
• Use the tips for asking challenging questions, safely, outlined in Issues 12 – 26 of this Newsletter.

How do you remove the toxic language without loosing the truth of what is being said.

1. Acknowledge the feelings: Start by recognizing the emotions involved to show empathy.
2. Separate the deed from the doer: Address the specific issue or behavior, not the character of the person.
3. Reframe the language: Use neutral, non-judgmental language that encourages constructive dialogue.

Here’s an example of how to rephrase toxic language:

Toxic language: “She never listens to anyone, and that’s why things always go wrong.”

Reframed: “It seems like there might be moments where communication breaks down, and that can create challenges in reaching a resolution.”

By rephrasing in this way, you’re still addressing the truth of what was said but in a way that is more likely to invite cooperation rather than defensiveness.

Ensure that your question is formulated in a way that focuses on gain rather than on loss.

Example:
If a party is looking for a settlement figure of $100,000 and the other side is offering $75,000, then the party will react more positively to a question that is phrased as a gain, rather than to a loss, even though the numerical value is the same:

An offer perceived as a gain:

You have a definite offer of $75,000 which is a certain payment… how might you respond to this offer?

An offer perceived as a loss:

You have an offer that is $25,000 less than you had hoped to receive…how might you respond to this offer?

A mediator needs to know the effect of any question that focuses on loss as opposed to gain, so that when a party seems to only focus on what they may lose compared to what they may gain, the mediator will be able to address this with some comparative and reality-testing questions so that the feeling of threat is minimized for that party. This is pertinent to all types of cases, not just ones involviing finance.

Visual:
I can see you are delighted with the project. How do you think other people are viewing it?

Auditory:
It sounds to me that you are pleased with the project? What are the things you have been hearing about it?

Kinaesthetic:
I sense you feel a very heavy burden on you since this happened? What would help you in lifting that heavy burden? What supports from the organisation might you need?

Olfactory:
You say you smell something fishy about this project – what exactly is that smell telling you?

Gustatory:
You say that you can taste the victory? What do you most relish about it?

For communication between parties to be effective, mediators need to be certain that a party hears a message as it was intended by the sender, the other party. If one party is using visual references and the other party is auditory, they may have mismatched communications. A mediator needs to reflect back to the party who uses this representational system using visual references, and then ask a question of the other party using the auditory representational system.

Doing this will create a safer and easier environment for asking questions and discussing issues.

In my opening statements I always ask parties to let me know if they think I am being impartial in any way. I tell them they can let me know in a private session or in the joint session.

By explicitly inviting feedback on impartiality, this creates a sense of psychological safety for the parties. It reassures them that their concerns about the process can be voiced without fear of retaliation or bias, which, in turn, fosters trust.

It is also a subtle way of reinforcing transparency and control—letting them know they have a say in how the mediation unfolds. When people feel they will be heard, they’re more likely to engage in good faith, even if the process is challenging.

Mediators need to believe in a party’s capacity to know the right answers, as they are the experts of their own conflict. On appropriate occasions during a mediation process, and when a mediator deems that the climate is conducive to it, parties can also be asked what questions they think are necessary to ask of themselves and of the other party.

To demonstrate one of the ways of doing this here I am employing Dr. David Rock’s SCARF® model

Dr. Rock has written many of the central academic and discussion papers that have defined the field of neuroleadership. His social neuroscience theory explores the biological foundations of the way people relate to each other and to themselves.

The SCARF® Drivers Model provides a framework to capture the common factors that can activate a reward or threat response in social situations.

The five SCARF® Drivers—status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness provide an effective tool for exploring how parties in conflict perceive and respond to social situations. To different degrees, impacts on all five domains can influence a person’s perception of a situation and whether they view it as being threatening or rewarding.

Status: Our sense of importance relative to others

Certainty: Our need to be able to make accurate predictions about our future

Autonomy: Our fundamental need to have personal control and self-determination over the events in our lives

Relatedness: The degree to which we feel a sense of connectedness, similarity, and safety with those around us

Fairness: Our feeling that we are treated in an impartial, equal, and just manner, without favoritism or discrimination

Reference ‘The Mediator’s Toolkit: Formulating and Asking Questions for Successful Outcomes’

·         Chapter 3: Working with the Brain in Mediation describes the theory of Dr. David Rock

·         Chapter 16: Underlying Interests Questions

The needs of people in conflict and the impact of the conflict on them can be explored by using the five SCARF® Drivers domains as subjects for exploratory questioning. In this example on the table below I am only employing the SCARF® Drivers Model as a subject or tool for asking questions that will activate a reward response and facilitate the empowerment of the parties here. There are many other uses for it.

One of the most critical aspects of mediation is creating an environment where all parties feel safe to engage and respond thoughtfully. In this issue I am starting with some key tips on the mediation framework and the essential mediator’s approach to use when asking questions. These should underpin any communicatons you have with parties in conflict.