Definition

Co-mediation is where multiple mediators (usually two) work together to help resolve a dispute.
It can be effectively used in both business and property cases. Co-mediation exists as a method
of working that can be very practical in a wide variety of circumstances. Some would argue co-
mediation is the best practice method, while others would say it is unnecessary to involve two
mediators.

According to Rendon: Co-mediation is a mediation involving multiple mediators, usually two,

who in some way may complement each other by gender, personality, culture, professional
background or other ways in a manner that can improve the quality of both the mediation process
and its outcome.

Some reasons as to why a co-mediation method might be chosen include: to mentor new
mediators;

 to combine skills and expertise;

 to provide a balance of, for example, gender, culture, or age;

 to mitigate risks such as safety concerns and complaint management;

 because it is your organization’s service method, or preferred way of

 working; or because the parties live a distance apart and a centre to centre co mediation is set
up to support parties in their respective locations.

Advantages of Co- Mediation:

 Modeling of co-operative behaviors.

 More ideas: two heads are better than one, and provide a greater potential for perspective
taking.
 More easily managing practical aspects, such as maintaining eye contact, monitoring
engagement, and observing body language and visual clues.
 Enhanced accountability to the process, both to clients and to the other mediator.
 Displaying transparency: co-mediation necessitates communicating and conferring on
steps in the process.
 Co-mediation can assist with the fatigue of being ‘on’ throughout the entire process by
using seamless turn-taking.
 Opportunities to expand experience, skills, and knowledge.
 Co-mediators can experience the exhilaration of being in sync, on the same page and
heading in the same direction.

Disadvantages of Co-Mediation:
  Resource intensive: lack of flexibility; time frames and costs can blow-out.
 Power imbalances can play-out between mediators.
 One mediator may monopolize/dominate the process.
 Ego — both yours and the co mediator’s.
 Philosophical differences or style differences that are incompatible/ intractable may arise.
 Different policy, procedures, and paperwork.
 Safety concerns: differences in awareness of safety issues, or inadequate responses to
safety issues.
 May potentially cause trauma if one mediator is perceived to act inappropriately or
unethically

Difficulties emerge in co-mediation when:

 One mediator or both mediators have assessed or pre-mediated one or both parties
 One mediator has not shared vital information with the other.
 Insufficient time or effort is given to set-up and debrief
 Organizational policy and procedure differ
 The process includes a dual purpose of assisting the parties and mentoring a new
mediator, and the boundaries and expectations for the new mediator have not been clearly
established.
 Mediators have not had training or experience in how to co-mediate.

Ways to do Co-Mediation

Co-mediation can be done in at least three ways: 1) front-seat/back-seat driving, 2) division of

labor or 3) taking turns.

1) Driving: Front-seat/back-seat

This type of co-mediation is often used as a training technique for new mediators. Typically in
this training model, the more experienced mediator becomes the “lead” mediator while less
experienced mediators observe and incrementally participate as their expertise and comfort with
the process increase. Patricia Gross, coordinator of the El Paso County Dispute Resolution
Center, states that newly trained DRC mediators are required to participate in co-mediation until
they feel confident to proceed on their own, or until she has noted that their skill level shows
they are ready to go solo. 

Front seat/back seat co-mediation has also been used with the new mediator conducting the
mediation and the more experienced mediator taking the back seat role. In this variation, the
more experienced mediator acts as observer and back-up and provides feedback to the new
mediator before and after the mediation. The Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings and
the U.S. Navy ADR programs use this variation to train their new mediators.
 2) Division of Labor- My job/your job:

Similar to front-seat/back-seat co-mediation is the division of labor where the parties specifically
divide the functions to be carried out by each mediator. One variation of division of labor co-
mediation is very much like the process of facilitation where one mediator “conducts” or
facilitates the mediation and the other acts as a scribe (Kestner & Ray, 2002). This labor division
could encompass two mediators complementing each other by each being in charge of a different
aspect of the mediation, such as: factual content versus communication patterns, legal issues
versus relationship or emotional issues, product (settlement) versus process (Baker, 2004;
Erickson, 1997; Mercer).

3) Taking Turns: By stages or with the flow

Perhaps the most common practice among experienced interdisciplinary co-mediators is where
they take turns carrying out similar, rather than opposite or complementary tasks in mediation.
One variation of this type of co-mediation is taking turns at each stage of the process. Another is
to “go with the flow” where the co-mediators take turns as situational appropriate.

In a “going with the flow” mediation, mediator A may speak to the parties while B listens,
observes or writes. If B suddenly notices a party’s reaction, has an idea, wants to address an
issue, or senses that the mediation should take a different direction, then B unobtrusively signals
A his/her intention to interject. Optimally, the co-mediators would have agreed on what signals
to use and when. After signaling, B generally waits until A finishes the current point or
conversation. Then B speaks while A listens, observes and/or writes. In this “with the flow” co-
mediation, the mediators may become aware that some parties connect better with one of the
mediators. The co-mediators may then change their plan accordingly, perhaps letting the: “better-
liked” mediator assumes a greater role or more specific tasks as may be most useful.

Final Practical Tips for Effective Co-Mediation

 Be a better co-mediator: be mindful of your co-mediator; develop ‘mindsight’ and learn

to ‘honor differences and create linkages’.
 Be clear about the purpose of co-mediation: Clarify your expectations of each other and
avoid operating for contrary purposes.
 Preparation is essential: focus on principles, purpose, process, and practice.
 Communicate, collaborate, and cooperate: At each stage of the process, from set-up to
debrief, walk your talk.
 Silence is golden: give space to silence.
 Do tackle the big stuff: work out what for you is the big stuff and don’t leave that unsaid.
Mediators will not improve skills or practice if they are blissfully unaware. It takes a lot
of skill to give sensitive feedback when things did not go well. Be open to receiving and
processing positive as well as negative feedback
 Be open, honest, and transparent. Avoid being brutally honest, as transparency supports
authenticity.
 Know your limitations: don’t be a solo mediator in co-mediator clothing. If you struggle
cooperating as a co-mediator then consider not working in the method.