Sometimes, friends share with me about the difficulties they are experiencing in their relationships. What they don't usually entrust me with is to mediate between them and their loved ones.

“It can’t be done. The mediator must be impartial”, they say.

And sure enough.

A good friend should choose sides – your side, right? A professional mediator, on the other hand, must be impartial. So, that makes the whole idea impossible…

…or does it?

Well, I argue that it is possible to mediate between two parties, even when one party is a friend of the mediator. Here is why.

* * *

To begin with, let’s ask ourselves: how can we imagine a genuinely impartial mediator work?

They couldn’t just say “you’re right” to one party and “you’re wrong” to the other, since that would be taking sides. So how might someone go about to mediate?

Well, one way is to lecture both a little bit. “Get yourselves together!”, the mediator might say. Both would then have to yield.

I wouldn't be happy with this approach. Contrary to popular belief, I don’t believe in compromising, even the slightest.

Compromising may hit both parties equally, but it inevitably creates resentment. Especially when one party has unilaterally harmed another, the “it’s a bit of both parties fault” approach is outright harmful.

I think we ca do better.

Another way to honor impartially is, of course, for no one to be faulted. In the spirit of “we are all the children of God”, the mediator might use their authority to ritually exclaim “now you both put this behind you and focus ahead”.

And sure, I can appreciate the intention in this, as it at least avoids blame. You see, the problem with blame is that when we humans experience it, our attention tends to become directed towards defending ourselves. Valuable attention is lost, that could have been used for acknowledging how one’s actions have affected someone else.

The problem though, is that that no one being held accountable with this approach.

Accountability is absolutely essential for true reconciliation to happen. It is also essential for the learning that leads to people wanting to act differently in the future.

So how do we do that?

How do we hold someone accountable for what they have done – but remain impartial – without it collapsing to simple blaming?

* * *

The key lies in how we see the world.

The mediator needs to have access to a different consciousness than the one in which the conflict arises. Plus the ability to practically “lend” it.

What’s this consciousness am I referring to?

Rather than investigating who’s right/wrong, reasonable/unreasonable, or who has to do this or that – implying a world view in which resources are scarce and it is logical to blame, attack or defend – the mediator instead seeks to support the parties in seeing the world with different eyes. Also, they are supported in having their perspective validated, in ways that do not harm the other.

When the parties are ready, the mediator also tries to help the parties take each other's perspective without losing their own.

With this approach, the mediator does not become an expert authority who is there to judge. Impartiality also does not become giving both parties equal rights/wrongs.

Instead, it becomes about being sensitive to what is going on in the room, and trying to make visible the needs of both parties. The mediator becomes a facilitator while the parties remain experts on their reality, as well as on the solutions that will work best for them – together or separately.

* * *

So, is it possible then, to mediate when one party is my friend?

My answer is yes.

As long as my focus during the conversation is to help two people connect, a mediation under those conditions has good prospects.

However, I need to pay attention to my beliefs about my friend and their relationship so that I don’t think I know everything about them. Rather, I need to be prepared to get to know them – and my friend – anew, over and over again.