Mediators spend a great deal of time thinking about case value, legal risk, bargaining ranges, opening moves, and settlement structure. All of that matters. But many mediations do not stall because the lawyers misread the law or because the parties cannot do the math. They stall because someone in the room is not ready to make a settlement decision.
That is not a soft issue. It is a practical one.
The client may understand the numbers but still want the mediation to prove, once and for all, that the other side was wrong. The corporate representative may have authority on paper, but not the internal permission to make a decision that will later be second-guessed. The employee may understand the risks of trial, but still feel that any release without an admission of wrongdoing would erase the experience that brought the person to the dispute in the first place. The consumer may hear the business explanation and still believe that the process is stacked against them.
Those reactions can be frustrating for counsel, but they are not unusual. They are part of the settlement environment. When they are ignored, they do not disappear. They appear later as resistance to a number, skepticism about a term sheet, anger at a mediator’s reality testing, or a late-day refusal to sign an agreement that had seemed within reach.
The practical question is not whether the client feels better at the end of mediation. The practical question is whether the client is able to say, with enough clarity and ownership to make the agreement durable: I understand what I am giving up, I understand what I am getting, and I want to settle now.
That is where mediators can be useful before the mediation ever begins. A mediator cannot replace counsel’s role in preparing the client. Nor should the mediator try. But a thoughtful mediator can help counsel prepare the client more thoroughly by moving the pre-mediation conversation beyond logistics and into a more practical question: what must happen before the client is emotionally able to choose resolution over continued conflict?
What the Research Shows About the Ability to Settle
The research is most useful when it is tied directly to the client’s settlement decision. The point is not simply that mediation works better when people feel heard. The point is that voice, perceived fairness, emotional acknowledgment, and process clarity help parties reach the decision threshold at which settlement becomes possible. A client does not settle merely because a mediator has conducted a good process. A client settles when the process allows the client to move from grievance, anger, fear, or vindication into a position where the client can make and own a hard choice.
That distinction matters because settlement is almost always an imperfect decision. It asks a party to accept less than full vindication, less than full compensation, less than a complete apology, or less than total defeat of the other side. For many clients, the hardest sentence in mediation is not, “I understand the number.” It is, “I am ready to end this now.” The research supports the practical conclusion that clients are more likely to reach that point when the process helps them understand their choices, feel that their concerns have been taken seriously, and separate the decision to settle from the feeling of surrender.
Chris Guthrie and James Levin’s review of party-satisfaction research is useful for that reason. They did not reduce mediation satisfaction to the dollar result. They identified expectations, participation, and the opportunity to be heard as important features of how parties evaluate mediation.[1] For lawyers, the readiness lesson is direct: a client who has not participated meaningfully in the evaluation of settlement may experience the agreement as something imposed by the lawyer, the mediator, the insurer, the court, or the other side. That kind of client may sign reluctantly, resist late in the day, or later regret the agreement. A client who has been prepared to participate in the decision is better positioned to say, “This is not perfect, but it is my decision.”
The EEOC’s evaluation of its mediation program makes the same point in an employment-dispute setting. The study reported very high willingness to use the program again — 91% of charging parties and 96% of respondents — even though not every participant received the outcome they wanted.[2] That finding should not be read merely as general praise for mediation. It is evidence that parties can accept an imperfect outcome when they experience the process as fair, neutral, understandable, and respectful. That is the bridge to emotional readiness: a party who feels steamrolled may remain psychologically committed to the fight, while a party who believes the process allowed a real opportunity to be heard may be more able to accept closure even without full vindication.
Roselle Wissler’s review of court-connected civil ADR likewise supports a careful, decision-focused point. The evidence does not show that every mediation technique guarantees settlement or that mediation always outperforms litigation on every measure.[3] But the empirical literature does show that fairness, satisfaction, and party perceptions of the process matter. Those perceptions matter because settlement agreements are not just economic transactions. They are decisions that parties must live with after the mediator leaves. If the client experiences the mediation as confusing, coercive, dismissive, or rushed, the same settlement terms may feel like capitulation. If the client experiences the process as fair and understandable, the client is more likely to experience the same terms as a deliberate choice.
The ABA Section of Dispute Resolution Task Force on Research on Mediator Techniques reinforces the need to avoid overclaiming. The Task Force found no single category of mediator action that consistently improved every outcome.[4] That caution is important. Emotional readiness should not be marketed as a universal settlement formula. But the Task Force’s work is still helpful because it treats mediator attention to emotions, relationships, sources of conflict, trust, rapport, and empathy as measurable mediation behaviors rather than as “soft” distractions. In practical terms, those behaviors can make reality testing more tolerable, reduce defensiveness, and help the client hear risk information without interpreting it as abandonment by counsel.
The workplace-mediation research points even more directly to the readiness problem. Kalter and colleagues found that in hierarchical workplace conflicts, mediators perceived supervisors’ emotions more accurately than subordinates’ emotions.[5] That matters because unrecognized emotion can distort the settlement decision. An employee whose anger, humiliation, fear, or need for dignity is missed may not be able to evaluate a release as a practical exchange. The employee may experience it instead as another instance of being ignored. Bollen and Euwema’s review of workplace mediation research similarly observed that workplace conflicts rarely require only a legal solution because emotions, concerns, and expectations affect the search for a lasting and constructive solution.[6] Jameson, Bodtker, and Linker’s work on emotional communication in workplace conflict also supports the point that attention to emotional appraisal and reappraisal can help parties transform conflict.[7] In settlement terms, that means helping the client reinterpret the choice to settle: not as surrender, but as control, finality, dignity, or strategic closure.
Commercial mediation is not exempt from this dynamic. Irvine and Farrington’s work on mediation and emotions rejects the false separation between rational decision-making and emotional experience.[8] That is particularly important in business disputes, where parties often insist that the case is purely about money, contract rights, ownership, leverage, or precedent. Those things may be central. But commercial clients also worry about reputation, internal accountability, board reaction, leadership identity, perceived weakness, betrayal, and loss of control. A business client may understand the litigation risk and still be unable to say, “Settle,” until the emotional meaning of that decision has been reframed as sound judgment rather than retreat.
The research, then, supports a narrower and stronger proposition than “mediation gives people a voice.” It supports this: clients are better able to make durable settlement decisions when the process helps them (1) understand what mediation can and cannot provide, (2) participate meaningfully in the decision, (3) feel that core concerns have been recognized, (4) process disappointment before the final decision point, and (5) connect settlement to agency rather than weakness. That is emotional readiness. It is the ability to choose resolution while still carrying anger, disappointment, or fear.
For counsel, the lesson is practical. The client does not need to be emotionally neutral. The client needs enough emotional preparation to use legal advice. Without that preparation, even excellent risk analysis may be rejected because the proposed settlement feels like betrayal. With that preparation, the same client may be able to say, “I do not like this. I still believe I was right. But I understand the choice, and I want to settle now.”
The Practical Point: Decision Readiness, Not Therapy
This article is about mediation and settlement preparation, not therapy. The mediator is not there to diagnose the client, manage the client’s life, or convert litigation into a counseling session. Counsel should not be asked to do that either.
The practical goal is narrower: to help the client become capable of making a settlement decision that the client understands, accepts, and can live with after the session ends. That is what decision readiness means. It is the emotional ability to say, “I want to settle now,” even when the client still feels wronged, disappointed, angry, or uncertain.
Settlement decisions are made by human beings. Emotional readiness affects authority, bargaining behavior, risk tolerance, timing, credibility, and the ability to hear difficult information. A client who is not decision-ready may reject a practical settlement because it feels like surrender. A client who has been prepared may accept compromise because it feels like control.
That distinction matters. The goal is not to make the client calm, agreeable, or detached. Many clients will remain angry. Some should. The goal is to help the client reach a point where anger does not make the decision for them.
A decision-ready client can hear bad news without treating it as betrayal. A decision-ready client can understand that a mediator’s questions are not endorsements of the other side. A decision-ready client can distinguish a compromise from a confession. A decision-ready client can accept that settlement may provide certainty, closure, and risk reduction without providing vindication.
That kind of readiness rarely happens by accident. It usually requires preparation before the mediation begins.
Start With Counsel Before the Session
The pre-mediation call is one of the mediator’s most useful tools. Too often, it is treated as a scheduling exercise: who will attend, when statements are due, whether the session will be remote or in person, and how the exchange of numbers will begin. Those issues matter, but they are not enough.
A more thorough pre-mediation call should invite counsel to think about the client’s decision posture. What does the client need to understand before making a settlement decision? What is the client most angry about? Is the client expecting an apology, admission, punishment, public vindication, or closure? Is there anything the client believes mediation will accomplish that it cannot realistically accomplish? Has the client heard, from counsel and not for the first time from the mediator, that settlement may include no apology, no admission of wrongdoing, and no perfect account of what happened?
Those questions are not intrusive. They are practical. They help counsel identify the gap between litigation readiness and settlement readiness.
The purpose of asking those questions is not to perform an emotional inventory for its own sake. It is to identify what may prevent the client from crossing the settlement threshold later in the day. If the client needs vindication, counsel can prepare the client for the possibility that the agreement will not provide it. If the client fears appearing weak, counsel can reframe settlement as control. If the client needs to be heard, counsel and the mediator can decide how that need can be addressed without allowing the session to become performative or unproductive.
Lawyers are often reluctant to say, “My client is not ready,” because it can sound like weakness. The mediator can normalize the issue. Emotional resistance is common, predictable, and usually manageable. A client can be angry and still settle. A client can feel wronged and still make a rational decision. The question is whether those feelings have been acknowledged and placed in context before they take over the mediation.
The mediator’s tone matters here. Counsel should not feel accused of failing to control the client. Instead, the mediator can frame the conversation around preparation: What would make the client more prepared for a difficult decision? What topics should counsel address before the mediation? What issues are likely to become barriers late in the day? What language might help the client understand the difference between settlement and surrender?
Help Counsel Identify the Human Barrier to Decision-Making
Clients rarely arrive with purely economic needs. They may speak in numbers, but underneath the numbers there is often something else: anger, fear, embarrassment, betrayal, exhaustion, pride, grief, anxiety, or a need to be heard. In business disputes, the language may be “principle.” In employment disputes, it may be “respect.” In consumer disputes, it may be “fairness.” In each setting, the question is whether the unaddressed human issue will prevent a practical decision.
Many lawyers miss this because they are focused, understandably, on winning the case. They have analyzed liability, damages, experts, insurance, contract language, fee exposure, arbitration risk, appellate risk, and trial themes. That work is essential. But the client may be living in a different mental file, asking: Will I look weak if I take this? Will people think I lied? Will my board think I folded? Will my employees think the company can be pushed around? Will my family think I gave up? Will I regret this tomorrow?
One of the mediator’s most important pre-mediation tasks is to help counsel identify what human barrier must be addressed before the client can make a rational settlement decision. Does the client need to tell the story out loud? Does the client need to hear that the other side understands the impact of what happened? Does the client need permission to settle without feeling weak? Does the client need to separate settlement from forgiveness? Does the client need to be reminded that closure has value even when vindication is unavailable?
Those questions matter because many clients come to mediation looking for something the process cannot fully provide. They may want a public finding that they were right. They may want the other side to admit wrongdoing. They may want the mediator to validate their anger. They may want the day to end with moral clarity. When those expectations are not addressed in advance, compromise can feel like a second injury.
Mediators can help counsel prepare clients for a harder and more useful truth: settlement often requires a person to trade the fantasy of perfect vindication for control, certainty, confidentiality, and peace. That is not an easy trade. For some clients, it is the hardest part of the entire case. Counsel who fail to name that tradeoff leave the client to confront it for the first time at the exact moment a decision must be made.
Litigation Readiness Is Not Settlement Readiness
Lawyers are trained to prepare clients for litigation events. They prepare clients for deposition. They prepare corporate witnesses for Rule 30(b)(6) testimony. They prepare executives for trial. They prepare experts for cross-examination. They prepare opening statements, demonstratives, witness outlines, and risk assessments.
Mediation deserves the same seriousness, but the preparation is different.
A client can be ready to testify and still not be ready to settle. A company can have authority and still not be ready to exercise it. A party can understand the settlement range and still be unable to move because the decision feels like a moral defeat.
Settlement readiness requires different questions. What does the client believe must happen before the dispute can end? What would make the client feel that the process was fair even if the outcome is imperfect? What does the client think settlement will say about them? What non-monetary terms matter? What will the client need to explain to a spouse, board, manager, insurer, business partner, or future self? What will the client do if the other side never apologizes?
Those questions are not a substitute for legal analysis. They make legal analysis usable. A risk assessment that the client cannot emotionally process will not guide decision-making. A settlement recommendation that feels like abandonment will not land. A term sheet that ignores dignity, identity, control, or future business needs may fail even if the number is rational.
Good preparation gives the client a framework for hearing hard information before the stress of mediation makes that information feel personal.
Employment Cases: Respect, Identity, and Being Heard
Employment disputes often carry emotional force beyond the legal claims. A termination, demotion, harassment allegation, wage dispute, retaliation claim, disability accommodation dispute, or noncompete issue may implicate identity, reputation, dignity, financial security, and a person’s sense of professional worth. For an employee, the dispute may be about more than money. It may be about feeling discarded, disbelieved, humiliated, or powerless.
For employers, the emotional dynamic is different but no less real. Managers may feel accused of conduct they deny. Business owners may feel betrayed by a former employee. Human resources professionals may feel frustrated that a decision they viewed as lawful and necessary has become a public accusation. Corporate representatives may worry that paying money will be viewed internally as an admission that the company did something wrong.
The mediator should help counsel prepare clients for those dynamics. For employee-side counsel, useful questions include: What does the client need besides money? Does the client need to tell the story? Would a neutral reference, resignation language, confidentiality, non-disparagement, benefits continuation, outplacement assistance, tax treatment, payment timing, or a change in personnel-file language matter? Is the client emotionally able to accept a resolution that includes no admission of wrongdoing?
That last question is critical. Many employment cases settle with no admission of liability. If the employee has not been prepared for that reality, the absence of an apology or admission may become an obstacle late in the day. It may not matter how reasonable the number is if the client experiences the document as another denial of what happened.
For employer-side counsel, the mediator may encourage preparation around tone and messaging. Even when an employer denies liability, a purely defensive posture can harden the other side. There may be room to acknowledge that the experience was difficult without admitting legal fault. There may be value in treating the plaintiff as a person rather than as a litigation risk.
Employment mediations often improve when parties can distinguish between legal admissions and human acknowledgment. A company can deny liability while still recognizing that the dispute has been disruptive, stressful, or painful. An employee can accept a settlement without agreeing that the employer’s version of events is correct. Counsel who prepare clients for those distinctions give the mediation more room to work.
In employment cases, decision readiness often begins with being heard. The mediator can help counsel decide whether that should happen in joint session, private caucus, written statement, or carefully framed mediator communication. The goal is not catharsis for its own sake. The goal is to remove barriers that prevent decision-making.
Business and Commercial Disputes: Control, Principle, and the Cost of Distraction
Business disputes can look rational on the surface. The parties may be sophisticated. The lawyers may be experienced. The issues may involve contracts, ownership interests, invoices, purchase agreements, fiduciary duties, restrictive covenants, warranties, trade secrets, business torts, or failed transactions. But commercial disputes have their own emotional undercurrents.
Business clients often frame disputes in terms of principle. “We cannot let them get away with this.” “We have to send a message.” “They lied to us.” “This is not how business is done.” “If we pay this, everyone will think we are weak.” Those statements may be sincere. They may also obscure the business decision that needs to be made.
Mediators can help counsel shift the client’s focus from vindication to enterprise value. What is the dispute costing in legal fees, executive time, employee attention, customer relationships, vendor confidence, lender concerns, board distraction, insurance uncertainty, and lost opportunity? What does continued litigation prevent the business from doing? What uncertainty remains on the balance sheet? What would closure allow?
In business cases, decision readiness often means helping the client separate principle from strategy. A party can believe strongly that it was wronged and still conclude that continued litigation is a poor business investment. Those two thoughts are not inconsistent. Good counsel can help the client hold both at once.
The mediator should also help counsel prepare clients for the possibility that business solutions may be more valuable than legal remedies. Payment terms, transition services, licensing arrangements, buyouts, revised contract language, return of property, access to records, agreed communications to customers, non-disparagement language, confidentiality, or future business protocols may solve problems that a judgment would not.
Commercial clients may also struggle with loss of control. Litigation places the outcome in the hands of a judge, jury, arbitrator, or appellate court. Mediation gives the parties a chance to design their own exit. That message can be powerful when counsel delivers it before the mediation begins. For the mediator, the key is to encourage counsel to ask: What does the business need now? Not what did it need when the complaint was filed. Not what does it wish had happened. What does it need now?
That question helps the client move from the past-tense story of the dispute to the future-tense value of resolution.
Consumer Cases: Frustration, Power Imbalance, and Practical Closure
Consumer disputes often involve a different kind of decision readiness. The dollar amounts may be smaller than in commercial cases, but the emotions can be just as intense. A consumer may feel ignored, deceived, trapped, embarrassed, or overwhelmed. The dispute may involve a purchase, loan, repair, warranty, service contract, debt, collection issue, credit report, subscription, account, or consumer arbitration clause. To the business, it may be one file among many. To the consumer, it may be deeply personal.
Mediators should help counsel recognize the perceived power imbalance. A consumer may arrive suspicious of the process, especially if the mediation occurs within a court, arbitration, or company-driven framework. The consumer may not believe anyone is neutral. The consumer may think settlement means being pressured to accept less than what is fair.
Decision readiness in consumer cases often requires plain language and process transparency. Counsel should prepare the client for what will happen, who will be present, what authority exists, what choices the client will have, and what the agreement will mean. Legal jargon can increase mistrust. Clear explanations can reduce it.
For consumer counsel, the mediator can suggest discussing practical goals early: refund, repair, replacement, account correction, credit reporting change, payment plan, cancellation, release, confidentiality, or simply finality. For business counsel, the mediator can encourage attention to respectful communication. A consumer who feels dismissed may become more entrenched. A consumer who feels heard may become more realistic.
Consumer cases may also require careful pacing. A party who feels overwhelmed may need time to process offers and consequences. The mediator can help counsel avoid rushing the client into a decision that later feels coerced or misunderstood. A settlement that the consumer understands is more likely to hold. A settlement that feels imposed may create a new dispute before the old one is truly over.
For businesses, the lesson is not that every consumer complaint must be validated. The lesson is that a respectful process can be efficient. A consumer who understands the process, believes the concern was heard, and sees a practical path to closure may be able to evaluate settlement more realistically.
Prepare Clients for the Moment of Disappointment
Many mediations have a predictable moment of disappointment. It may occur when the first offer arrives. It may occur when the mediator tests a cherished argument. It may occur when the other side refuses to apologize. It may occur when the client realizes that the agreement will include compromise rather than vindication.
Counsel should prepare clients for that moment before it happens.
The conversation does not need to be dramatic. It can be direct: “There may be a point in the day when this feels unfair. That does not mean the mediation is failing. It means we are at the point where we have to compare imperfect settlement with the risk, cost, delay, and uncertainty of continuing.”
That kind of preparation gives the client a script for interpreting the hard parts of the process. Without it, the client may experience ordinary mediation pressure as disrespect, abandonment, or weakness.
The mediator can help by encouraging counsel to identify the likely disappointment in advance. Is the client likely to be upset by the absence of an apology? By the first offer? By confidentiality? By tax language? By a release? By the lack of a public statement? By a payment schedule? By the fact that the other side will say it is settling only to avoid litigation expense?
None of those issues should surprise the client at 5:30 p.m. when everyone is tired, and a decision is needed.
Use Non-Monetary Terms as Decision Tools
A narrow focus on money can make settlement harder than it needs to be. Money matters, of course. In many cases, it is the central term. But the emotional and practical work of resolution often depends on terms that do not fit neatly into a damages spreadsheet.
In employment cases, neutral references, resignation language, benefit issues, confidentiality, non-disparagement, payment timing, tax treatment, or personnel-file terms may matter. In business cases, transition provisions, revised contract language, licensing rights, return of property, customer communications, or future dealing protocols may matter. In consumer cases, repair, replacement, correction, cancellation, credit reporting, or plain-language confirmation may matter.
Mediators can help counsel prepare clients to think about these terms before the mediation. What would make the agreement more useful? What would make the client more comfortable signing? What terms would reduce the risk of later regret? What terms would help the decision-maker explain the settlement to others?
That preparation does not guarantee settlement. It broadens the field of possible solutions. It also helps clients see settlement as an exercise in problem-solving rather than a single painful number.
Give Lawyers a Readiness Checklist
One useful mediator practice is to give counsel a short readiness checklist before the session. It need not be complicated. It should be practical enough that counsel can use it without feeling that the mediator is asking for a psychological assessment.
A decision-readiness checklist might include these questions:
• Has the client identified an acceptable range of outcomes?
• Does the client understand that settlement may not include an apology, vindication, admission, or public finding?
• Has the client been told that the mediator may test weaknesses in private caucus?
• Does the client understand that reality testing is not blame?
• Does the client know the likely cost, delay, distraction, and risk of not settling?
• Has the client considered non-monetary terms that could make resolution more useful?
• Has the client thought about how the settlement will be explained to anyone whose approval matters?
• Is the decision-maker prepared to make a final decision that day?
• Is there any internal approval, insurer consent, board input, tax advice, lien issue, or third-party approval that must be addressed before the mediation?
• Does the client understand what signing a settlement agreement or term sheet will mean?
The checklist is not meant to turn lawyers into therapists. It is meant to remind them that settlement decisions are made by people, not pleadings. A client’s anger, fear, pride, sense of dignity, or need to be heard is not separate from settlement strategy. It is part of it.
The Mediator’s Role During the Mediation
Even with careful preparation, the mediation session itself will test the client’s readiness. The mediator’s role is to create conditions that make good decision-making more likely.
That begins with clarity. Clients should understand the process, the mediator’s role, the confidential nature of caucus communications, the difference between evaluation and advocacy, and the fact that the mediator is not deciding the case. Process confusion can become emotional resistance. Clarity reduces avoidable mistrust.
The mediator should also listen for the difference between a negotiation position and a decision barrier. A party who says “that number is insulting” may mean the offer is too low. The party may also mean: “I do not believe they understand what this has done to me.” A business representative who says “we have to stand on principle” may mean the company has a valid legal defense. The representative may also mean: “I am worried how this will look internally.” A consumer who says “I do not trust them” may mean the business has behaved badly. The consumer may also mean: “I do not understand the process well enough to feel safe making a decision.”
The mediator does not need to overreach. Often, the most useful move is to help counsel translate the barrier into a decision question. What would the client need to know to evaluate the proposal? What term would address that concern? What risk is the client willing to continue carrying? What would make the settlement explainable? What would make it final?
The mediator can also help reframe compromise. Settlement does not have to be presented as surrender. It can be framed as judgment, risk management, closure, business discipline, dignity, or control. Different clients need different frames. The lawyer who knows the client well is often in the best position to deliver the message. The mediator’s job is to help counsel identify the message before the moment passes.
The Mediator’s Role Before the Mediation
Mediators cannot make parties decision-ready by force. But they can create conditions that make readiness more likely.
Before the mediation, mediators can ask better questions. They can help lawyers anticipate barriers. They can encourage counsel to prepare clients for the limits of the process. They can ask whether the right decision-maker will attend. They can ask whether non-monetary terms have been considered. They can ask whether a client expects something the mediation is unlikely to provide. They can ask whether there is a relationship, dignity, reputation, business continuity, or internal-approval issue that could affect settlement.
This does not require a mediator to become intrusive. It requires the mediator to be practical. If the client will not sign without board authority, address that before the mediation. If the employee will struggle with a no-admission clause, address that before the release is drafted. If the consumer distrusts the process, explain the process before the first offer. If the business representative needs internal permission to compromise, identify that before the final number is on the table.
Preparation is especially important because mediation often asks clients to hold two uncomfortable thoughts at once. They may believe they were right and still choose to settle. They may believe the other side behaved badly and still decide that litigation is no longer worth the cost. They may accept money without receiving an apology. They may pay money without admitting liability. They may end the dispute without achieving moral clarity.
That is hard human work. It is also ordinary settlement work.
Conclusion
The strongest mediations do not ignore the human dimension of conflict. They organize it well enough that it does not control the decision.
For lawyers, this means preparing clients not only to argue the case, but to make a decision about the case. For mediators, it means using the pre-mediation process to help counsel identify emotional, practical, and internal barriers before they become an impasse. For clients, it means understanding that settlement rarely supplies perfect vindication, but it can provide control, certainty, closure, and a path forward.
A client who is decision-ready may still choose not to settle. That is fair. But the decision will be clearer, more deliberate, and more durable because it will be made with an understanding of both the legal risks and the human tradeoffs.
That is often the difference between a mediation that merely occurs and a mediation that actually works.
---------------------------------------------------
Citations for Studies Cited
[1] Chris Guthrie & James Levin, A "Party Satisfaction" Perspective on a Comprehensive Mediation Statute, 13 OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION 885 (1998).
[2] E. Patrick McDermott, Ruth Obar, Anita Jose & Mollie Bowers, An Evaluation of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Mediation Program, U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (Sept. 20, 2000).
[3] Roselle L. Wissler, The Effectiveness of Court-Connected Dispute Resolution in Civil Cases, 22 CONFLICT RESOLUTION QUARTERLY 55 (2004).
[4] ABA Section of Dispute Resolution, Report of the Task Force on Research on Mediator Techniques (2017); see also Roselle L. Wissler & Gary Weiner, How Do Mediator Actions Affect Mediation Outcomes? The Report of the Section's Task Force on Research on Mediator Techniques Offers a Few Clues, DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE, Vol. 24, p. 26 (2017).
[5] Merel Kalter, Katalien Bollen, Martin Euwema & Alain L.P.G. Verbeke, A Matter of Feelings: Mediators' Perceptions of Emotion in Hierarchical Workplace Conflicts, 12 FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY 629768 (2021).
[6] Katalien Bollen & Martin Euwema, Workplace Mediation: An Underdeveloped Research Area, 29 NEGOTIATION JOURNAL 329 (2013).
[7] Jessica K. Jameson, Andrea M. Bodtker & Talia Linker, Facilitating Conflict Transformation: Mediator Strategies for Eliciting Emotional Communication in a Workplace Conflict, 26 NEGOTIATION JOURNAL 25 (2010).
[8] Charlie Irvine & Laurel Farrington, Mediation and Emotions: Perception and Regulation, in THE EMOTIONAL DYNAMICS OF LAW AND LEGAL DISCOURSE 211–239 (Heather Conway & John E. Stannard eds., Hart Publishing 2016).