Finding Our Way Forward: Moving from Positions to Interests
When a family goes through a separation or a profound transition, conversation is often the first casualty. Pain, fear, and uncertainty have a way of shrinking our world until we find ourselves backed into tight corners. Every discussion starts to revolve around rigid positions—demanding what needs to happen right this second just to feel a fleeting sense of safety and control.
In mediation, we often look at process models that map out how we handle these moments. We can approach a problem narrowly, focusing strictly on legal rights, positional bargaining, and predicting what a judge might rule in a courtroom. That evaluative, narrow stance treats conflict like a contest to be won or a dispute to be pared down through legal leverage.
But true, durable resolution for a family never lives in a corner.
My heart and practice lie on a different part of that map: a facilitative, interest-based approach paired with a broad definition of the problem. Instead of fighting over a rigid line in the sand or rushing toward a forced compromise, we slow down and look beneath the surface. We ask what people actually need, what values are being threatened, and how to protect the children's well-being while honoring both adults' futures.
Using this framework changes everything about how a room feels. When we move away from defensive demands and start exploring underlying interests, the air clears. People stop trying to win an argument and start designing practical solutions that fit the reality of their daily lives.
Helping families navigate change isn't about imposing quick fixes or telling people how to live. It is about holding a calm, structured space where dignity is preserved, clarity takes root, and people can finally move forward with courage and connection.
Understanding the Mediation Framework
To see how we navigate these choices in practice, it helps to look at the two core dimensions that define a mediator's orientation: how the mediator acts (the role) and how the problem is framed (the definition).
The Evaluative-Narrow Approach
What it looks like: The mediator takes a directive role—predicting court outcomes, assessing case strengths and weaknesses, proposing narrow settlements, and pushing parties toward position-based compromises.
When it happens: Typically seen in litigation-oriented settings where the goal is to pare down legal disputes and fight over a fixed slice of rights.
The Evaluative-Broad Approach
What it looks like: The mediator remains directive or evaluative, but expands the scope to look at broader settlements, educating themselves on interests, and predicting the impact of not settling.
The Facilitative-Narrow Approach
What it looks like: The mediator acts as a process facilitator but keeps the focus tightly on evaluating specific proposals, assessing court consequences, and discussing the immediate strengths and weaknesses of a narrow case.
The Facilitative-Broad Approach (Our Practice Standard)
What it looks like: The mediator uses a process-focused, empowering style combined with a wide lens.
Core actions: Helping parties evaluate proposals, exchange broad interest-based options, develop solutions that respond to real human needs, and deeply understand what is driving the other person.
Why we use it: It honors informed self-determination and builds durable, life-ready agreements for families.
