Mediation and self-esteem

Lockdown has got me thinking about fairness, or more accurately, unfairness. As a society we are – mostly – pulling together, accepting that Covid-19 isn’t fair but getting on with life anyway. So why is it that we are able to accept some things as unfair but feel a deep sense of bitterness and unfairness about other acts? What is it that makes us want to prove we are right and others are wrong? What makes people want to have their day in court?

A question of fairness

President John F Kennedy famously said ‘Life is unfair’ while commenting on the Vietnam War. Complaints about perceived injustices are often met with these same words. Yet it’s not surprising we’re so attuned to a sense of unfairness, or injustice.  From an early age we learn that there’s a link between good – whether that’s good work, good behaviour or good effort – and reward. Eat your greens and you can have ice-cream. In adult life, when our ‘fairness’ radar picks up inequity we feel aggrieved, let down, treated unfairly.

When people as individuals, or distinct groups, feel that they’re being treated unfairly, it erodes their self-esteem. According to some writers on dispute resolution, self-esteem is the most powerful motivating factor in all conflict in human existence.

Disputes and self-esteem

In disputes, the impact of self-esteem can be seen at every stage. Take dispute creation, when a breach of contract or act of negligence is viewed as an affront – Who do they take me for? How dare they treat me like this? The perceived injustice, disrespect or unfairness dents the sense of self, of importance. From the defendant’s perspective, the damage comes from the humiliation of an accusation of negligence (or, worse still, dishonesty).

Once the dispute has started, it’s easy to see how polarising the influence of self-esteem can be on the opposing parties. Convinced that they’re right, each party expects moral authority to fall into line. They expect justice to be done. Except, as we all know, it doesn’t always work out that way. At the culmination of a trial, someone is going to come out with a dented sense of self-esteem (and I can think of examples where all parties do).

Mediation and damage limitation

In my opinion, one of the reasons why mediation works is that it allows parties to manage the risk of damage to their own self-esteem. Given the opportunity to take control of the dispute process and outcome, the party can reflect and decide upon what level of damage is endurable. And it cuts both ways. The most adept at mediation understand the effectiveness of conducting a negotiation in a way which enables the other party to retain or regain self-esteem, too.

Sun Tzu, a 4th-century BC Chinese military strategist, wrote: ‘a wise conquering general is one who builds a golden bridge upon which his defeated enemy can retreat’. Allowing a disputant to retreat gracefully, in a way in which allows them to maintain their self-esteem, is more likely to prompt a successful outcome. If retreat means humiliation, the ‘unfairness’, or the potential damage to self-esteem, justifies a continued fight.

So, perhaps we can accept that life is unfair provided that we’re not singled out by others for unfair treatment. Rather than focusing on annihilation, let’s concentrate on allowing all parties to exit a dispute with a modicum of self-esteem. Life may be unfair – but there’s an important caveat: we should not be treated unfairly.