Category Archives: ADR

Mediation: Cause or Industry?

Our passion for mediation sometimes makes us speak of it as a cause, something noble and good. Yet paradoxically, if mediation is and remains merely a cause, its reach and impact will be limited.

In response, I believe that we must envision mediation primarily as an industry. Indeed, the future of mediation depends on our creating an economically strong mediation industry, replete with a full value chain of providers — mediators, infrastructure providers (e.g.,, etc.), training and credentialing agencies, business consulting services (e.g., and of course clients

By analogy, fighting disease is a cause. And good causes garner support, which in turn induces change in service of the cause. But when the only motive force behind the change is the goodness of the cause, change is painfully slow.

Consider, in contrast, what happens when a cause is backed by a profit-driven industry — the pharmaceutical industry in my example. The force of that industry – more so even than the goodness of the cause — creates the potential for substantive and rapid change. Witness the eradication of so many diseases, eliminated by the might of a $700 billion global pharmaceutical industry.

I hope ideology – specifically, anti-capitalist, anti-corporatist, and social justice sympathies – doesn’t impede the ability of mediation and its practitioners to flourish and prosper. Our cause will be greatly undermined if that were to happen.


ADR: What’s In a Name?

Many industries are known by an abbreviation or acronym. Manufacturers and installers of heating and ventilation systems describe theirs as HVAC — an abbreviation-cum-acronym for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning. Our industry — principally, the industry of mediation, arbitration, conciliation, and negotiation — has chosen for itself the unfortunate abbreviation of ADR.
Close up shot of industrial fan while spinning
I should clarify: It is not that ADR is an unfortunate choice, but rather that for which it stands — namely, alternative dispute resolution. I’ve always had a visceral dislike for the ADR thing, the reasons for which, if you’ll indulge me, I shall articulate below.

When people are in conflict, they feel vulnerable; and when people feel vulnerable, they reach for sources of safety and strength. That which is alternative suggests neither. Alternative connotes the fringe, something potentially radical (and hence dangerous or risky) and certainly unconventional.

The term ADR established itself in the 1960s, when formal ADR processes were being conceived by the founders of the ADR movement. (Menkel Meadow, C. 2000. Mothers and Fathers of Invention: The Intellectual Founders of ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution. 1-37). At that time, the ADR abbreviation served its purpose, being both descriptive and well-chosen as a differentiator from litigation or violence. But the term has since, I believe, become a professional liability, scaring away many more people than it attracts.

I’m not the first to say it, but I also take issue with neutral. I don’t believe people in conflict want neutrals. They want advocates and problem-solvers — people who can and will actively engage in conflict and extricate the parties therefrom. Neutrality connotes aloofness and ineffectuality.

Mediators frequently wring their hands, troubled and frustrated by the industry’s failure to find broader acceptance. To this end, I’ve often wondered what a Madison Avenue advertising agency would do if it signed our industry as a client. The first thing, I imagine, would be a whole new lexicon. What say you?