This article went up last month on HBR.org. The title says it all: “Antagonistic Mediators Can Make Resolving Disputes Easier”. Huh?
Although we tend to think of mediators as “nice”, empathetic people, the article cites research that suggests that a different style could be more effective at times. For the types of disputes studied, a “hostile” mediator generated greater willingness on the part of adversaries to reach agreement. In a nutshell, a hostile mediator enabled the parties to ally against him/her to move forward to resolve their dispute.
What I think is important to note about these findings is that the dispute was a business dispute. The relationship between disputants in that type of case is very different from one where spouses, former spouses, or family members are involved. Emotional currents can run much deeper for folks who have been married, have kids, or are related; I find it harder to imagine that a “mean” mediator would be as effective with parties who are already in a difficult emotional place (or, perhaps the mediator doesn’t have to be “as” mean).
On a personal note, what struck me about the piece is that “hostile” is rarely how I relate to people. Client feedback is that I’m calm, and helpful. To act in a hostile manner would be inconsistent with my personality, something that would be apparent pretty quickly. I think that the research results on the “Surprising Effectiveness of Hostile Mediators” will stay theoretically interesting.