Mediators do not have laws and regulations to prove their legitimacy as judges do. Instead, they must depend on their own neutrality and the voluntariness of the parties involved (Astor, 2007, p. 222). These two principles, combined with the mandate of confidentiality, allow mediations the chance to be successful. Should these elements not be in place the mediation would not be able to serve it’s definition; “a process in which an impartial third party facilitates communication and negotiation and promotes voluntary decision making by the parties to the dispute. (Model Standards of Conduct, 2005)” In the Radix/Argyle case we see how the foundation of mediator neutrality, a mutual willingness or voluntariness to participate in the …show more content…

226). The mediator in this case made strong suggestions to the parties that were very pointed and specific, but the choice was always there for each to cooperate.
When the mediator suggested that the companies both share their future goals, the option was there to refuse (Friedman & Himmelstein, 2008, p. 271). For example, when the mediator said “Of course you needn't disclose anything that doesn't make sense to you (Friedman & Himmelstein, 2008, p. 271)” the atmosphere of voluntariness was reinforced. If the mediator had instead placed strong pressure on the parties to divulge the information, the willingness of the parties to participate could have evaporated. Instead the mediator gave several responses to their concerns that reinforced their ability to say no and allowed the parties to consider the benefits of the risk. When the mediator said, “To put it simply, if you reveal your real interests to each other, we might find a solution that would be better for both of you. That's what you need to think about (Friedman & Himmelstein, 2008, p. 271)” he gave a clear reason why his suggestion should be considered, without putting pressure on the parties. In my opinion, this increased the credibility and trustworthiness of the mediator and allowed the