In helping parties to resolve their differences, an effective mediator needs to give attention both to issues and relationships. While the content of the dispute, whether war or widgets, is plainly critical, so is how those involved understand one another.

A critical underlying influence is culture – or “how we do things round here” – the beliefs and values each party brings to the dispute, which can have a profound effect on the negotiations. The same words may mean different things in different cultures. Even non-verbal communication can lead to misunderstandings e.g. eye contact is expected in some cultures while in others it is rude and disrespectful.

Generalisations about national characteristics are rarely helpful, but experience suggests some broad patterns. US businesses are often represented in mediation by their in-house counsel. As the lawyer often acts as principal this can make decision-making more effective. But it can also mean a more robust and more positional style of negotiation.

Westerners negotiating with Japanese businesses may find it difficult to read signals and whether a good relationship has been established. In one example it seemed there was a good enough relationship for the Western party to make an offer to the Japanese party. But no response was forthcoming, and when months of ‘radio silence’ followed it seemed the negotiation had failed. Unexpectedly there then followed a diametrically different counter-offer, showing that a relationship of trust had indeed been established, which led to agreement in due course.

As well as national cultures, other groups have their own cultures in their beliefs and ways of thinking and acting and even jargon. These may be social e.g. activities or neighbourhoods, or work e.g. businesses or professions – in fact any community that shares common beliefs and values.

To get them to resolution a mediator often has to translate between different sets of values and priorities. We believe that a very effective way to address these differences is to have co-mediators who speak the language both of business and law.

It enables the mediators to be alert not only to the parties’ stereotypes but also to our own cultural biases, which can otherwise lead us to side with a party whose culture most resembles our own. We are also able to balance the parties’ preferences for a direct or indirect communication style.

Other specific cultural differences, identified by Geert Hofstede, include the extent to which less powerful members of society defer to others in decision-making; whether individuals are looking out for themselves or the group of which they are members; whether a party’s dominant values are achievement and success, or about quality of life; the extent to which people can handle uncertainty and try to avoid it; and whether the party takes a longer- or shorter-term perspective.

Whether by drawing attention to these elements at the beginning of mediations across cultures, or even better in meetings with the parties before the mediation day, effective mediators need to be aware of these differences and look for ways to address them.

Lawrence Kershen QC and Alan Greenberg are Quanta Mediation www.quantamediation.co.uk. They can be booked exclusively through In Place of Strife, The Mediation Chambers on 0333 014 4575 or at www.mediate.co.uk.

‍