🕊️ Mediation & conflict resolution
Mediation & alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
Mediation and conflict resolution: C. Moore ("The Mediation Process"), R. A. B. Bush & J. Folger (transformative mediation), H. Zehr (restorative justice), Fisher & Ury.
Full detail in the “Origin & history” section below.
Author of the library
Negotiation lecturer at KEDGE Business School
A rare threefold background serving negotiation: teaching, commercial justice and audit, backed by experience as a company director in Bordeaux.
Restorative justice shifts the centre of gravity of a conflict: instead of naming a culprit and setting a penalty, it brings offender and victim together (and sometimes their community) to name the real harm, hear its human impact and jointly build a form of repair. Transposed to negotiation, it offers a framework for handling disputes where the relationship has been damaged by a fault, a breach or a betrayal of trust, and where a purely financial settlement is not enough to close the matter. It aims less to «be right» than to restore a workable bond for the future. It is a mediation stance that turns acknowledgement of the wrong into an asset of the solution, not a precondition for punishment.
At a glance
Vigilance: low (2.0/10) · Preparation required: 7/10
Indicative profile: it situates the “Mediation & conflict resolution” family as the Mediation & conflict resolution school practises it, not this technique taken in isolation. Techniques from the same family and school therefore share the same profile. NEGOCOACH editorial rating out of 10, non-experimental · the higher the “relational risk” value, the more costly the technique is to the relationship.
NEGOCOACH assessment
Tactical potential 6.3/10 (effectiveness, impact, discretion) and vigilance low (relational and ethical risk): two distinct readings, deliberately never merged into a single score that would reward risk. NEGOCOACH editorial rating calibrated from the “Mediation & conflict resolution” family and the “Mediation & conflict resolution” school. Each criterion is rated out of 10; click to understand what it measures.
How far the technique can carry the negotiation in the intended direction when it is well executed.
Strength of the effect produced on the counterpart's perceptions, emotions and decisions.
How hard it is for the other party to notice the technique is being used. A high value = very discreet.
The information, analysis and rehearsal required upfront to use it effectively.
Potential cost to the relationship and to trust if the technique is spotted, refused or fails. A high value = riskier.
Moral acceptability: fairness, transparency and respect for the counterpart's autonomy. A high value = more defensible.
Documented school
The school this technique stems from is documented by recognised work and established practice, without experimental consensus. This indicator qualifies the school, not this technique taken in isolation.
Indicative NEGOCOACH editorial rating, for teaching purposes. For “Relational risk”, a high value signals a cost to the relationship, not a quality.
Restorative justice took formal shape in the United States and Canada in the 1970s: the first Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programme emerged in Kitchener (Ontario, 1974), then in Elkhart (Indiana). The term and the conceptual framework were popularised by Howard Zehr (often called the «father» of the movement), notably in Changing Lenses (1990), building on an insight attributed to Albert Eglash. The Australian criminologist John Braithwaite provided a theoretical foundation with «reintegrative shaming» (Crime, Shame and Reintegration, 1989). The collective practices, family group conferences and circles, draw on Indigenous traditions: the Māori whānau, incorporated into New Zealand law in 1989, and the sentencing and healing circles of the First Nations of North America.
A structured, voluntary process overseen by a third party (mediator/facilitator), bringing together the person who caused harm and the person who suffered it, widened where appropriate to their families or community, in order to: (1) establish the facts and their lived impact, (2) have the offender acknowledge responsibility, (3) jointly define the obligations of repair (material, symbolic, behavioural) and (4) restore, as far as possible, the relationship and trust. In negotiation, it is a mode of dispute resolution oriented towards «repairing the bond and the harm» rather than «assigning blame and penalty», where the agreement bears on what sets things right for the parties concerned.
Application by context
After a defective delivery that harmed their own client, the buyer secures from the supplier not only a credit note but a meeting where the director acknowledges the wrong, explains the cause and commits to an audited corrective plan; the commercial relationship resumes instead of breaking down.
Faced with a defaulting supplier, the buyer replaces the formal notice with a repair session where the supplier grasps the real impact (halted line, lost customers) and jointly builds a remediation plan, preserving a source that is sometimes irreplaceable.
In a collective dispute following a badly announced restructuring plan, management and staff representatives organise a circle where the perceived injury (contempt, fear) is named and acknowledged, opening a negotiation on support measures rather than a pure trial of strength over redundancy payments.
After an incident in which a company wronged its users, a restorative meeting between executives and victims allows for detailed public apologies and concrete measures, which eases the pressure and makes possible an overall agreement upheld more reliably than an imposed settlement.
To move past a conflict that has left resentment (community, elected officials, institution), a process of mutual acknowledgement of wrongs precedes the substantive negotiation, turning deadlocked adversaries into interlocutors capable of signing.
In a dispute between co-owners or between landlord and tenant after damage and months of tension, restorative mediation has the wrong acknowledged and a form of repair negotiated and accepted, avoiding a lawsuit that would durably freeze relations between neighbours condemned to live side by side.
When a cultural misunderstanding has caused an offence between partners from different countries, a restorative framework, close to the reconciliation rituals of many cultures, allows acknowledgement of the wrong before the business negotiation is reopened.
In an inheritance or a divorce poisoned by a perceived betrayal, bringing the parties together to name the harm and offer gestures of repair unblocks the division of assets that the mere calculation of shares could not settle.
Counter-techniques
Negotiation is also played on defence. Here is how to recognise this technique when it is used against you, and turn it around.
The signals that give it away
The counters that defuse it
Turn it into an advantage
Name the manoeuvre: said out loud, a technique loses most of its power.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts.
STRENGTHS: addresses the emotional cause of the deadlock (the need for recognition) that distributive negotiation ignores; widens the zone of agreement by adding non-financial currencies of exchange (apologies, commitments, changes); produces agreements that are better upheld because jointly built and experienced as fair; preserves or rebuilds a valuable relationship; high victim satisfaction rates documented in the criminal field. WEAKNESSES: requires at least partial acknowledgement of the wrong by the offender, impossible if they deny everything; time-consuming and emotionally demanding; presupposes a competent third party and a safe framework; sits poorly with purely technical disputes lacking a relational dimension; risk of re-victimisation or pressure on the injured party where the balance of power is heavily skewed.
Favourable when a real wrong has been committed and acknowledged (at least in part) and where an ongoing relationship is at stake or wanted; when the victim has a need for recognition that money alone cannot meet; when the judicial alternative is long, costly and destructive of the bond; when the parties agree to meet voluntarily and a third party can make the exchange safe. To be avoided in cases of total denial of responsibility, of a gravely asymmetric balance of power that cannot be offset, of manifest bad faith, or of a plain technical dispute with no relational charge.
Diplomatic · New Zealand, 1989: family group conferences enter the law, Confronted with the over-representation of young Māori in its criminal justice system, New Zealand incorporated in 1989 (Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act) the family group conference, inspired by whānau practices. Before any decision by a youth court judge, offender, victim, extended families, police and social workers meet to agree collectively on the repair. This founding case shows the restorative logic institutionalised: the 'negotiation' of the penalty is delegated to the parties concerned and their community, with high victim participation and satisfaction rates.
Judicial · Kitchener 1974: the first victim-offender reconciliation, In Kitchener (Ontario), two young people who had vandalised property were, at the initiative of a Mennonite probation officer, sent to meet their victims directly to agree on compensation. This experiment, often cited as the birth of the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Programmes, illustrates the heart of the technique: replacing an abstract penalty with a meeting where the offender grasps the concrete harm and negotiates its repair with the injured person.
Recognising the approach: you are offered a meeting 'to repair the bond' in which an acknowledgement of wrong and commitments are expected of you. Legitimate and often desirable, but stay alert if it serves to extract admissions reusable elsewhere, to make you feel guilty beyond your actual responsibility, or to secure concessions through emotional charge. Defending yourself without breaking the process: clarify the framework upfront (confidentiality, what counts as repair versus legal acknowledgement of fault), separate empathy for the lived impact from an admission of responsibility you do not accept, insist on a neutral third party, and refuse any commitment made under immediate pressure by asking for time to reflect. You can receive the other's suffering without signing up to a disproportionate repair.
Restorative justice presupposes strict conditions: the free and informed consent of both parties, the psychological safety of the victim, the offender's capacity to acknowledge the facts. Ethically, it must never become an injunction to forgive nor a means of avoiding a responsibility that falls under the law (it complements, it does not replace, the law when fundamental rights are at stake). The major risk is re-victimisation and instrumentalisation in situations of coercive control or serious violence, contexts in which many practitioners advise against it or frame it very tightly. Transposed to business negotiation, it demands that a raw balance of power not be dressed up as a 'reconciliation circle'.
Victim-offender mediation (VOM); family group conferences (New Zealand); sentencing circles and healing circles (First Nations); reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite); truth and reconciliation commissions (societal scale, e.g. South Africa); in negotiation: transformative mediation (Bush & Folger), principled interest-based negotiation (Fisher & Ury), strategic recognition and apologies, difficult conversations (Stone/Patton/Heen).
Quick exercise
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
Frequently asked questions
Restorative justice shifts the centre of gravity of a conflict: instead of naming a culprit and setting a penalty, it brings offender and victim together (and sometimes their community) to name the real harm, hear its human impact and jointly build a form of repair. Transposed to negotiation, it offers a framework for handling disputes where the relationship has been damaged by a fault, a breach or a betrayal of trust, and where a purely financial settlement is not enough to close the matter. It aims less to «be right» than to restore a workable bond for the future. It is a mediation stance that turns acknowledgement of the wrong into an asset of the solution, not a precondition for punishment.
Yes. Used in good faith it stays within a fair negotiation: it structures the exchange without deceiving the other party. Being transparent about your intentions strengthens the long-term relationship.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts. The right reflex: slow down and reformulate.
NEGOCOACH does not assess the experimental validation of this technique in isolation. What we document is the grounding of its source school (Mediation & conflict resolution): documented school. Full detail is in the "At a glance" section of this page.
Practise with AI
Copy, paste into your assistant, replace the [brackets]. Works with ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Perplexity.
Build your plan before the meeting
You are an expert negotiation coach. Help me prepare to use the "Restorative Justice" technique in the following situation: [describe your situation]. Give me: the conditions for success, a 3-step script, my counterpart's likely objections and how to answer them.
Rehearse against an AI counterpart
Play the role of my counterpart in a negotiation. I am going to test the "Restorative Justice" technique. React realistically and with resistance, do not give in too quickly, then at the end analyse my performance and suggest 3 concrete improvements.
Analyse a past negotiation
Here is how my negotiation went: [paste the exchanges]. Analyse whether the "Restorative Justice" technique was used well, what worked, the mistakes made, and spell out precisely what I could have done better.
References
Founding works of the 🕊️ Mediation & conflict resolution school this technique belongs to.
The Mediation Process
BookC. W. Moore · 2014
The Promise of Mediation
BookR. A. B. Bush & J. P. Folger · 2005
The Little Book of Restorative Justice
BookH. Zehr · 2002
Getting to Yes
BookR. Fisher & W. Ury · 1981
Mediation and conflict resolution: C. Moore ("The Mediation Process"), R. A. B. Bush & J. Folger (transformative mediation), H. Zehr (restorative justice), Fisher & Ury.
On video
Videos to picture Restorative Justice and anchor it through examples.
A verified video selection is being enriched; the search above already surfaces the best videos on the topic.
Technique map
Every technique sits within a network: what it draws on, what it combines with, where it applies, and how to defend against it.
Spot its signals, neutralise it and turn it around with the defensive playbook on this page.
See the counter-techniquesRestorative justice shifts the centre of gravity of a conflict: instead of naming a culprit and setting a penalty, it brings offender and victim together (and sometimes their community) to name the real harm, hear its human impact and jointly build a form of repair. Transposed to negotiation, it offers a framework for handling disputes where the relationship has been damaged by a fault, a breach or a betrayal of trust, and where a purely financial settlement is not enough to close the matter. It aims less to «be right» than to restore a workable bond for the future. It is a mediation stance that turns acknowledgement of the wrong into an asset of the solution, not a precondition for punishment.
Name the manoeuvre: said out loud, a technique loses most of its power.
Reacting emotionally instead of coming back to the facts.
Our programmes turn theory into a concrete advantage.