8125

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 8125
• Author: Moore, C. W.
• Title: Editor
• USFW Year: Series
• USFW - Doc Type: 1986
• Copyright Material: YES

How Mediation Works 15
parties approve of the mediator's presence and are willing to lis-
ten to and seriously consider the intervenor's suggestions.
Impartiality and neutrality are critical to the process of
mediation (Young, 1972). Im~iartiality refers to the attitude of
the intervenor and is an unbiased opinion or lack of preference
in favor of one or more negotiators. Neutrality, on the other
hand, refers to the behavior or relationship between the inter-
venor and the disputants. Mediators often either have not had a
previous relationship with disputing parties or have not had a
relationship in which they have directly influenced the rewards
or benefits for one of the parties to the detriment of the other.
Neutrality also means that the mediator does not expect to di-
rectly gain benefits or special payments from one of the parties
as compensation for favors in conducting the mediation.
People seek a mediator's assistance because they want
procedural help in negotiations. They do not want an inter-
venor who is biased or who will initiate actions that are detri-
mental to their interests.
The need for impartiality and neutrality does not mean
that a mediator may not have personal opinions about a dis-
pute's outcome. No one can be entirely impartial. What impar-
tiality and neutrality do signify is that the mediator can sepa-
rate his or her opinions about the outcome of the dispute from
the desires of the disputants and focus on ways to help the par-
ties make their own decisions without unduly favoring one of
them. The final test of the impartiality and neutrality of the
mediator ultimately rests with the parties. They must perceive
that the intervenor is not overtly partial or unneutral in order
to accept his or her assistance.
Kraybill (1979) and Wheeler (1982) address the tensions
between impartiality and neutrality and the personal biases of
mediators by distinguishing between the substantive and pro-
cedural interests. Wheeler argues that mediators generally dis-
tance themselves from commitments to specific substantive
outcomes-the amount of money in a settlement, the exact
time of performance, and so forth-but have commitments to
such procedural standards as open communication, equity and
fair exchange, durability of a settlement over time, and enforce-