The Four Core ADR Processes
1. Mediation
A voluntary, confidential process in which a trained neutral third party helps disputing parties communicate, identify their underlying interests, and reach a mutually acceptable resolution.
Power dynamic: The parties retain full control. The mediator does not decide anything — they facilitate the conversation and help parties find their own solution. Best for: Workplace disputes, interpersonal conflicts, EEO pre-complaint resolution, family matters, and any situation where preserving the relationship matters. Outcome: A voluntary agreement — or no agreement, if parties choose not to settle. Nothing is imposed.Key Distinction
In mediation,
you
decide. In arbitration,
someone else
decides. This is the most important difference in the ADR landscape.
2. Arbitration
A process in which a neutral arbitrator (or panel) hears evidence and arguments from both sides and renders a binding or non-binding decision.
Power dynamic: The arbitrator holds decision-making authority, similar to a judge. Parties present their cases but do not control the outcome. Best for: Contract disputes, employment claims where parties have agreed to binding arbitration, commercial disputes. Outcome: An arbitral award. In binding arbitration, this is final and enforceable. In non-binding arbitration, parties can still reject the decision and proceed to court.3. Facilitation
A structured group process in which a neutral facilitator guides a team, committee, or organization through a difficult conversation, decision, or planning process.
Power dynamic: The facilitator manages the process but has no authority over content or outcomes. Participants retain full decision-making power. Best for: Team conflicts, organizational change processes, community meetings, multi-stakeholder planning sessions, post-incident debriefs. Outcome: Shared understanding, group decisions, action plans, or simply a more productive conversation.4. Conflict Coaching
A one-on-one process in which a trained conflict coach works with an individual to develop their capacity to navigate a specific conflict or improve their conflict management skills generally.
Power dynamic: The coach supports the individual's own thinking and decision-making. There is no opposing party in the room. Best for: Leaders preparing for a difficult conversation, individuals in ongoing disputes who need support, managers building conflict literacy, employees navigating workplace tension. Outcome: Improved clarity, communication skills, and a personalized action plan.A Quick Reference Guide
| Process | Who Decides | Binding? | Best Use Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mediation | The parties | No (voluntary) | Relationship preservation, EEO, workplace |
| Arbitration | The arbitrator | Usually yes | Contracts, employment claims |
| Facilitation | The group | No | Team decisions, organizational change |
| Conflict Coaching | The individual | No | Personal development, difficult conversations |
Why This Matters for Your Organization
The most common mistake organizations make is defaulting to arbitration clauses in employment contracts without thinking through what they're trading away. Binding arbitration is faster and cheaper than litigation — but it removes the parties' control over the outcome, and it doesn't touch the underlying relationship or systemic issues that caused the conflict in the first place.
Mediation has a settlement rate of 70–85% in workplace contexts,[[1]] and those agreements hold because the parties built them. Research from the EEOC's ADR program found that 93% of respondents would use mediation again.[[2]]
If you just need to close a specific dispute and move on, arbitration might work. If you need to preserve a working relationship, address something systemic, or build conflict capacity — mediation and facilitation are almost always the better call.
The Bridge & Gavel Approach
At Bridge & Gavel ADR LLC™, we practice transformative mediation — an approach grounded in the work of Bush and Folger that focuses not just on reaching agreement, but on restoring the parties' capacity to communicate and make decisions together.[[3]] We integrate interest-based relational principles (Fisher, Ury & Patton) and restorative justice frameworks where appropriate.
Every engagement starts with a diagnostic conversation to figure out which ADR process — or combination of processes — is the right fit for your situation.
