🕊️ 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.
The caucus, or private session, is a separate and confidential meeting that the mediator (or any third-party facilitator) holds with each party in the absence of the other. It serves to unblock a stalled negotiation, to lower emotional tension and to test privately the room for manoeuvre that the parties would not dare to explore face to face. Its strength lies in asymmetric confidentiality: what is said in private is relayed only with the explicit consent of the person who confided it. Well conducted, it turns locked positions into negotiable interests; poorly conducted, it breeds a suspicion of bias.
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.
The term “caucus” comes from the Algonquian language (“to gather”), popularised as early as the eighteenth century in North America (John Adams uses it in his diary in 1763). As a formalised mediation technique, the private session was theorised by Christopher W. Moore in “The Mediation Process” (1st ed. 1986, Jossey-Bass), a reference work drawn from his practice and his training at the American Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. In France, the technique is described and framed in the professional mediation literature (notably the work of Michèle Guillaume-Hofnung), where the private session is subject to the consent of the parties and to strict confidentiality.
The caucus is a sequence, within a negotiation or mediation process, during which the third-party facilitator (or, by extension, a negotiator who suspends the plenary session) meets one of the parties separately, behind closed doors. Three operating rules define it: (1) the physical separation of the parties; (2) the default confidentiality of what is said there, the third party being able to report to the other party only with the express authorisation of the person who spoke; (3) balance, the third party offering a symmetrical private session to each party in order to preserve impartiality. It aims to gather sensitive information, to explore concessions without loss of face and to regulate emotion, before returning to joint session.
Application by context
During a framework-contract negotiation stalled over price, the mediator (or the sales director acting as arbiter) sees the client alone to understand their real budget ceiling, then the supplier alone to test a discount conditional on volume, without either revealing their limit to the other.
A buyer at odds with a sole supplier suspends the meeting and speaks separately with the salesperson and with their own technical director to check privately how far the specification can be relaxed before resuming the pricing discussion.
In a collective dispute, the labour mediator receives the union delegation and management in turn in confidential private sessions to identify each side's non-negotiable points and to sketch a pay/organisation compromise away from the assembly's gaze.
Facing a hostage-taking or a site occupation, the negotiator isolates the key interlocutors to speak frankly, defuse the pressure and test a way out of the crisis without the hardliners in the group hearing the concessions being considered.
During a contested reform, a facilitator receives each parliamentary camp separately to learn their real red lines and to propose a balanced text that no one would agree to suggest in public for fear of disavowing their base.
In a sale that stalls over price and repairs, the agent or mediator sees the seller alone (motivations, urgency to sell) then the buyer alone (real capacity, attachment to the property) to find the landing margin that neither of them displays.
When two teams from different cultures clash over unspoken assumptions, the mediator conducts private sessions to decode privately the communication codes, the notion of face and the hierarchical constraints specific to each side before bringing them together.
In divorce or inheritance mediation, the family mediator receives each parent or heir alone to let resentments and fears be expressed without poisoning the relationship, and to identify the real priorities (custody of the children, a symbolic asset) before the joint session.
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: the caucus frees up speech by removing the audience effect and the fear of losing face; it makes it possible to gather information that neither party would give up face to face; it regulates emotions and breaks escalation spirals; it allows the third party to test scenarios without committing anyone. Weaknesses: it creates a risk of perceived bias (“what did he tell him?”); it complicates the handling of confidential information (the third party must remember what may or may not be repeated); it can cut off the dynamic of direct dialogue between the parties and make the agreement dependent on the third party; poorly dosed, it feeds mistrust and manipulation (each suspecting the other of plotting with the mediator).
The caucus is particularly suited when the joint session is blocked by a deadlock or an emotional escalation; when a party needs to disclose sensitive information (budget limit, legal weakness, hidden motivation) that it will not state in public; when a strong power imbalance prevents the weaker party from expressing itself freely; when the relationship is so degraded that face-to-face is counterproductive; or when an offer must be tested before it is formalised. It should, on the other hand, be avoided at the very start of a process based on restoring direct dialogue, or when trust in the third party's impartiality is not yet established.
Diplomatic · Camp David 1978: Carter's shuttle of private sessions, Over thirteen days at Camp David, US President Jimmy Carter, refusing to let Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat negotiate directly after the first meetings had degenerated, conducted a long series of separate private sessions with each delegation. By shuttling between the two camps, gathering each side's red lines confidentially and submitting successive versions of a single text, he made it possible to reach the Camp David Accords. The case illustrates the caucus as a central tool when direct face-to-face has become impossible.
Business · Unblocking a partners' dispute through the private session (representative scenario), Two co-founders of an SME, in disagreement over the buy-out of one's shares by the other, hurl abuse at each other in joint session. The mediator suspends the meeting and receives each separately: from the first, he draws out the fear of losing operational control; from the second, the need to secure his departure financially. On learning, with their consent, that their priorities do not overlap (one wants power, the other money), he rebuilds a proposed agreement that the resumed plenary session then finalises. A representative scenario, not attributed to any identified real case.
To recognise that you are in a manipulated caucus: be wary if the third party multiplies unbalanced private sessions, if they press you to concede “because the other is ready to move” without proof, or if they seem to be carrying slanted messages. To defend yourself: set the confidentiality rules from the outset (“what may you repeat, what must I keep to myself?”); disclose in private only what you are willing to see potentially circulate; distinguish what you explicitly authorise to be passed on from the rest; demand symmetry of private sessions; and verify any claim about the opposing party's position (“the other would accept X”) before responding with a concession. In a bilateral negotiation without a third party, the defensive equivalent is to ask for a recess to regain the initiative rather than suffer it.
Limits: the caucus has value only if the third party's impartiality is real and perceived as such; it presupposes rigorous handling of information, failing which it becomes a source of manipulation. Ethically, confidentiality is the heart of the device: the third party must clarify its regime in advance (default confidentiality vs. transparency on request) and never use the private session to apply pressure, misinform or set one party against the other. The mediator must not use confidences to steer the agreement unilaterally, nor maintain an imbalance of time or attention between the parties. Diverted, the private session ceases to be a facilitation tool and becomes a technique of division; that is the boundary between mediation and manipulation.
Related techniques: shuttle diplomacy (repeated private sessions between parties who never meet); the single-text procedure (a single text amended in successive private sessions, popularised at Camp David); the recess or “time-out” in bilateral negotiation; the pre-caucus (a preliminary meeting before the joint session); reframing, often practised in private session; “reality testing”, where the third party, privately, confronts a party with the weakness of its best alternative (BATNA); and full shuttle mediation (caucus-only mediation), where the whole process takes place in private sessions.
Quick exercise
Answer in your head, then reveal the solution. Memory is built through active recall.
Frequently asked questions
The caucus, or private session, is a separate and confidential meeting that the mediator (or any third-party facilitator) holds with each party in the absence of the other. It serves to unblock a stalled negotiation, to lower emotional tension and to test privately the room for manoeuvre that the parties would not dare to explore face to face. Its strength lies in asymmetric confidentiality: what is said in private is relayed only with the explicit consent of the person who confided it. Well conducted, it turns locked positions into negotiable interests; poorly conducted, it breeds a suspicion of bias.
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 "The Caucus (Private Session)" 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 "The Caucus (Private Session)" 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 "The Caucus (Private Session)" 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 The Caucus (Private Session) 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-techniquesThe caucus, or private session, is a separate and confidential meeting that the mediator (or any third-party facilitator) holds with each party in the absence of the other. It serves to unblock a stalled negotiation, to lower emotional tension and to test privately the room for manoeuvre that the parties would not dare to explore face to face. Its strength lies in asymmetric confidentiality: what is said in private is relayed only with the explicit consent of the person who confided it. Well conducted, it turns locked positions into negotiable interests; poorly conducted, it breeds a suspicion of bias.
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.