Originally from:

Journal of American Arbitration (JAA) - Vol. 4, No. 2

Preview Page

ARTICLES

Neutrality as Aspiration: Understanding
Mediators’ Biases and Limitations
By Christopher Honeyman

I. INTRODUCTION
Mediators regularly make claims of neutrality; indeed, neutrality is a
foundational assertion in the field of alternative dispute resolution.1 The
claim has been opposed before, but generally in terms that are either
polemical, or specialized as to subject matter, or both. The notion has
been under-explored that there might be limitations on neutrality that on
the one hand are generally applicable, and on the other are not, or at least
should not be, particularly alarming. This article will attempt to pull
together and update several previous writings of my own to try to
provide a wide-ranging look at some inherent limitations on mediator
neutrality.
Even an experienced negotiator can be rather surprised by the
orientations and actions of mediators, particularly when encountering a
mediator she has not worked with before. Leonard Riskin’s thoughtful
series of “grid” explanations2 has been helpful in explaining the
differences, but have concentrated on trying to make clear the nature of
the differences themselves, rather than the “why.” The simplest way to
describe the relationship of this article to Riskin’s (newest) grids is that
the two approaches represent different layers of an overall image of
mediation—though the notion of such overlays, admittedly, draws more
from graphic arts or Photoshop than from legal or ADR imagery.
Sometimes, the circumstances are such that the canny negotiator
would be surprised if there were no surprises in working with a new
mediator—e.g., when working in a different culture.3 But, unless a
negotiator is a “repeat player” with the same pool of mediators—so that