Transformative Mediation

Strengths: preserves and repairs the relationship, often more valuable than the one-off stake; produces more durable and better-owned agreements because they come from the parties themselves; a high rate of participant satisfaction, even when no agreement is reached (a finding of the REDRESS programme); fully respects the parties' self-determination and avoids pressure from the mediator; particularly robust in ongoing relationships and in emotional or cross-cultural contexts. Weaknesses: little use when a quick, concrete result is needed (the process can be lengthy); frustrating for parties who mainly want to “get the matter settled”; requires a highly trained and disciplined mediator (non-directiveness is harder than it looks); poorly suited to strong power asymmetries, where mere “openness” can disadvantage the weaker party; results that are less predictable and harder to measure than in agreement-oriented mediation.

To be preferred when the relationship between the parties must continue (family, neighbours, colleagues, long-term commercial partners), when the conflict is emotionally or identity-charged, when cultural or communication misunderstandings dominate, and when the parties' self-determination is a central value of the arrangement. To be avoided when a quick and enforceable decision is essential, when one of the parties is acting in bad faith or is exploiting the dialogue, in cases of violence or coercive control, or where the power imbalance is such that the openness asked of the vulnerable party would expose them.

Business · The US Postal Service's REDRESS programme, From 1998, the United States Postal Service rolled out nationwide REDRESS (Resolve Employment Disputes, Reach Equitable Solutions Swiftly), a scheme for mediating employee-management disputes explicitly grounded in Bush and Folger's transformative model. Its mediators are forbidden from being directive or evaluative and must only create opportunities for empowerment and recognition. The evaluations conducted by Lisa Blomgren Bingham and Tina Nabatchi show high satisfaction rates among employees and supervisors alike, including when the dispute was not resolved in session, which illustrates the model's central promise: transforming the quality of the interaction, regardless of any agreement.

Everyday life · A neighbour dispute that was not only about a hedge, A representative (unattributed) scenario: two neighbours have been at loggerheads for months over a shared boundary hedge and a gutter. An agreement-oriented mediator would quickly settle the technical question. In a transformative stance, the third party lets each of them express what really hurts (the feeling of not being respected, the sense of being ignored) and reflects the moments when one begins to hear the other. The hedge ends up being settled in a few minutes once the relationship itself has been detoxified: the apparent object of the conflict was not the real issue.

• Slipping into directiveness: suggesting, evaluating or pushing a solution, which betrays the very principle of the model
• Confusing recognition with concession: forcing a party to “recognise” the other, when recognition must remain voluntary
• Wanting agreement at all costs and measuring success solely by the settlement rate, forgetting the transformation of the interaction
• Using the approach in a context of strong power asymmetry or violence, where non-directiveness can harm the vulnerable party
• Lacking training: believing that “being passive” is enough, when reflecting and supporting without steering is a demanding skill

Recognising the approach: the third party never proposes a solution, they reformulate a great deal, highlight your moments of decision and of listening, and consistently hand the steering back to you (“what is important to you here?”). This is not manipulation: it is a deliberate methodological choice. To avoid getting lost if you need a concrete result, it is legitimate to name your need explicitly (“I need an operational decision today”) and, where appropriate, to ask for a more directive or evaluative framework, or even a different mode of resolution (facilitative, arbitration). When facing a party who might exploit the openness being asked for, you can put procedural safeguards in place (separate caucuses, presence of an adviser) without leaving the table.

Limits: the model is not universal; it assumes parties who are minimally in good faith and capable of deliberating. It is poorly suited to urgency, to strong asymmetries and to situations of violence or coercive control. Ethically, its strength is also its safeguard: strict respect for self-determination forbids the mediator from imposing an outcome, but in return obliges them to remain vigilant about the imbalances they do not actively correct. The mediator must remain transparent about the non-directive nature of the process (informed consent), preserve confidentiality, and know when to redirect the parties towards another arrangement if relational transformation is clearly not the issue or if a party is in danger.

To be distinguished from facilitative mediation (the third party structures the search for a solution without evaluating it) and from evaluative mediation (the third party gives an opinion on the merits). Close in some respects to narrative mediation (Winslade & Monk), which also works on the relationship and the story of the conflict. It connects with Nonviolent Communication (Rosenberg) on listening and the recognition of needs, with the “interests” approach of Fisher & Ury (Harvard principled negotiation), which it complements on the relational side, and with restorative-justice schemes, which share the primacy of mutual recognition over sanction or agreement.

• Robert A. Baruch Bush & Joseph P. Folger, The Promise of Mediation: The Transformative Approach to Conflict, revised ed., Jossey-Bass, 2005
• Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation (ISCT), the leading body for the study and training of the transformative model
• US Postal Service REDRESS programme (about.usps.com/who/legal/redress), an operational description of the scheme and its principles
• Beyond Intractability, an educational summary of “The Promise of Mediation” (beyondintractability.org)

• Robert A. Baruch Bush & Joseph P. Folger (1994) The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (revised ed. 2005: The Transformative Approach to Conflict)
• Joseph P. Folger & Robert A. Baruch Bush (1996) Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice Mediation Quarterly, 13(4), pp. 263-278
• Tina Nabatchi & Lisa Blomgren Bingham (2001) Transformative Mediation in the USPS REDRESS Program: Observations of ADR Specialists Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal, 18(2)