Here we have the possibility of a mediator intervening with mediation participants not just for the purpose of helping them to reach agreement. Now it is suggested that there would be additional goals of empowerment and recognition, and these goals would, in part, guide our choice of intervention. Without these goals, all strategic interventions would be guided by whether that intervention is helpful for the parties to reach agreement. Now we might do certain interventions to empower or acknowledge, whether those interventions were necessary or desirable for the purpose of reach agreement. In other words, it is suggested that the mediator will commonly utilize empowerment and recognition techniques and strategies not necessarily because the mediator has empowerment and recognition as goals for the mediation but, rather because the mediator believes that such accomplishments will assist the participants to reach what they perceive to be their best agreement.
Empowerment seems inconsistent with the mediator's impartial role.
Many of these same mediators would have no problem accepting the concept that, in order to achieve agreement, it is appropriate for the mediator to help each party fully appreciate the possible weaknesses of their case and the possible strengths of the other side. The mediator could not be identical with each party as the doubt-based questions that are operative with each party are different. What is important, we might conclude, is that, overall, the mediator gives comparable treatment to the parties. Thus, it would seem, there is no greater ethical challenge for mediators who choose to mediate with empowerment compared with those who mediate highlighting risks and concerns. Many of us will do both of these approaches.