Empowering Mediators in the MENA Region

In international mediation, cultural intelligence is often described in technical terms: understanding high-context versus low-context communication, hierarchy versus egalitarianism, and monochronic versus polychronic time. Even within a single international organisation, workplace mediation may assume an international character when conflicts arise between culturally diverse staff operating across institutional and national boundaries. These frameworks are undoubdetly useful. They ensure structure and clarity. But in my experience, cultural intelligence begins somewhere much simpler. It begins with the human dimension. Before we deal with cultures, we deal with people. And when we focus first on the person in front of us, we reduce the risk of over-intellectualising cultural difference. We move away from stereotypes and toward curiosity. The question shifts from “How does this culture behave?” to “Who is this individual, and how do they wish to be engaged?” That shift is not theoretical, but profoundly practical.

‍

1.     Cultural Intelligence Starts with Respectful Attention

At an early stage of my mediation practice, a senior colleague, prominent mediator from the USA, once made an observation that stayed with me. He said that my origin was not immediately identifiable, that I could be perceived as belonging to different regions, and that this might, in international work, be advantageous. At that time, I did not attach particular importance to the remark. Over the years, however, I began to understand its relevance.

In cross-border disputes, parties inevitably form assumptions about everyone in the room, including the mediator. They assess background, affiliation, cultural proximity, and other aspects. Sometimes this happens consciously, often it does not. The mediator therefore occupies a delicate space. While never culturally neutral in an absolute sense, the mediator must be perceived as psychologically accessible to all sides. Cultural intelligence includes awareness not only of the parties’ identities, but of how one’s own identity may be read within the room.

On one occasion, I worked with a Chinese businesswoman who introduced herself using her European first name. However, on the application, her Chinese name appeared. Rather than assume which name she preferred, I asked her how she would like to be addressed. She immediately expressed her preference for her Chinese name, explaining that she had adopted a European name to make it easier for others to pronounce and remember, but she preferred to be addressed by her Chinese name whenever possible, as it carries special personal and cultural meaning for her. Of course, I addressed her by her preferred name. This small moment signaled respect for identity rather than convenience. That gesture subtly strengthened trust and engagement at the outset.

Cultural intelligence is not always about mastering cultural codes. Often, it is about asking one precise question at the right moment. When we, as mediators, approach culture as a checklist, we risk oversimplifying its inherent nuances. When we approach it as an invitation to listen, we build connection.

‍

2.     When Etiquette Meets Relationship

Once, I worked with parties from an Islamic state. As prescribed by standard etiquette, a woman should extend her hand first to intiate a handshake. At the same time, I was aware that local tradition generally discourages physical contact between unrelated men and women. Accordingly, I did not initiate handshakes with male participants, and, when greeting them, I placed my hand over my heart and greeted them verbally. For the first days, the interactions followed formal protocol. However, after several days of working intensely together something shifted. When we concluded, a few of the men extended their hands to me. From a strict etiquette perspective, this might appear inconsistent. But from a cultural perspective, it was deeply meaningful. It was not a breach of tradition, it was an expression of respect developed through professional relationship.

That experience reinforced an important lesson: culture is not static, it is relational. Trust modifies formality. Shared work creates its own space of mutual recognition. As mediators, we must understand formal norms, but we must also recognise that mediation itself transforms dynamics. Cultural intelligence includes the ability to sense when a relationship has evolved beyond initial protocol.

‍

3.     Time Is Not Neutral

One of the most underestimated cultural dimensions in mediation is the perception of time.

In some Western commercial contexts, time is linear, segmented, and tightly scheduled. Deadlines are strict. “Let’s get to the point” signals seriousness. In many other cultures, time is relational rather than strictly chronological. Meetings may begin with extended conversation. Building rapport precedes substantive negotiation. The process may appear slower, but it is not inefficient, it is foundational.

Even small talk reflects these different time orientations. In some cultures, preliminary conversation is an essential negotiating strategy, used consciously by parties and mediators to build trust and signal respect. In others, it may be perceived as unnecessary or even as a distraction from the “real” issues. What one side experiences as relationship-building, the other may interpret as time-wasting.

When parties from different time cultures meet in mediation, misinterpretation is common: one side may perceive delay as obstruction, and the other may perceive urgency as aggression or disrespect. The mediator’s role is not to impose one tempo over another, but to manage expectations explicitly.

I often address time early in the process. I clarify the structure of the day, but I also signal flexibility. I explain how we will move between joint sessions and caucuses, reassuring the efficiency-oriented party that progress can occur even when conversation appears indirect, and the relationship-oriented party that structured timing does not mean emotional dismissal. I also observe that parties themselves are becoming more culturally aware and adaptive. Many demonstrate a growing willingness to stretch their habitual time assumptions, whether that means allowing space for relational conversation or accepting more structured pacing than they might prefer. When they are unsure how much flexibility is appropriate, they ask for mediator’s guidance on how to pace the discussion in a way that feels respectful and productive for everyone involved.

‍

4.     Numbers Speak Different Languages

Cultural intelligence becomes particularly strategic during the bargaining phase. In one culture commercial mediation, numbers are often presented directly and explicitly. Offers may move in relatively large, structured concessions. Parties may perceive concession patterns analytically: “We reduced by 20%; you reduced by 5%.” In other negotiation contexts, however, numbers may carry relational symbolism. Opening figures can be influenced by status considerations, or long-term positioning. Concessions may be gradual, layered, and carefully calibrated to preserve dignity. The same numerical movement can therefore be interpreted in entirely different ways: one party may see a small concession as bad faith while another party may see a large concession as destabilising or premature. This is where cultural intelligence becomes a practical tool.

In one cross-border supply dispute I mediated between a European manufacturer and an Asian distributor, the gap initially appeared commercially amenable to settlement. However, after the first exchange of revised offers, the European side increased its concession substantially, expecting reciprocal movement of similar magnitude. The Asian party responded with a comparatively modest numerical adjustment. The Europeans interpreted this as a tactic insult and even questioned whether a Zone of Possible Agreement (ZOPA) existed at all. Privately, however, the Asian executives explained that large movements early in the process would signal weakness internally and risk loss of face with headquarters. Their incremental concession was intended as a serious step within their negotiation logic. What one side perceived as an offensive offer was, in fact, a carefully calibrated strategic manoeuvre.

At that stage, joint sessions were counterproductive. Through separate caucuses, I was able to reframe the concession patterns: to the European party, I explained the relational and hierarchical constraints shaping the incremental approach; to the Asian party, I clarified how minimal numerical movement was being interpreted as resistance. Once both sides understood the logic behind the numbers, we were able to restructure the bargaining format, breaking the global figure into components and sequencing movement, which eventually revealed a workable ZOPA.

A mediator who recognises these patterns can reframe movement constructively by:

-       explaining that gradual concession does not necessarily indicate unwillingness,

-       structuring negotiations to allow face-preserving flexibility,

-       encouraging parties to signal intention alongside numbers (“This reflects serious movement”, “This is exploratory”, etc.); breaking down global figures into components when analytical clarity is needed.

In other words, the mediator becomes an interpreter not of language, but of negotiation style. Yet the outcome of mediation rests in parties’ hands, the medator’s cultural awareness at this stage may meaningfully affect settlement probability.

‍

5.     From Neutrality to Relational Competence

Traditional descriptions of mediation emphasise neutrality and impartiality. These principles remain fundamental. In the design of international mediation processes, however, the limits of neutrality become particularly visible. Mediators are sometimes chosen to represent the respective cultures of the parties under the assumption that fairness will be enhanced. Yet such arrangements may unintentionally reinforce division: each party may perceive “its” mediator as a subtle advocate and the other as aligned with the opposing side. Rather than dissolving boundaries, cultural representation can solidify them. A single mediator who does not represent any of the parties’ cultures, but who is deeply familiar with and respectful of them, often provides a more constructive alternative. When neutrality is combined with cultural intelligence, the mediator is not claimed by either side. Both parties encounter an equally external and equally attentive presence. In this way, neutrality becomes relationally effective, not a withdrawal from culture, but independence from cultural alignment, supported by informed understanding.

In international and cross-border disputes, neutrality alone is insufficient. The international mediator must also possess relational competence — the ability to navigate identity, perception, symbolism, and unspoken assumptions, which requires curiosity rather than certainty, observation before interpretation, questions before conclusions, and flexibility without loss of structure.

Cultural intelligence is not about mastering every custom. It is about creating an environment in which difference does not become an obstacle to resolution. When done well, it allows parties from different countries, industries, and value systems to discover that, beneath procedural variation, they are negotiating profoundly human concerns. And that is where durable agreements are built.

‍

Conclusion

In international mediation, cultural intelligence is not an optional refinement, it is a professional responsibility. When parties cross legal, commercial, and psychological boundaries, they enter a space of heightened vulnerability. As a result, assumptions multiply and misinterpretations accelerate. Small gestures carry disproportionate weight. In that environment, the mediator’s task is not merely to manage a process, but to hold a space in which difference does not become division.

Cultural intelligence, at its core, is not about mastering etiquette or memorising frameworks. It is about disciplined attentiveness to the human being behind the position. It is about recognising when a name carries identity, when a gesture signals respect, when time reflects relationship rather than delay, and when numbers express dignity as much as value.

The international mediators who cultivate this awareness do more than bridge cultures. They reduce friction before it escalates, translate intention before it hardens into accusation, and transform diversity from a barrier into a resource. In a world where commercial relationships are increasingly global and disputes increasingly complex, the mediator’s role is evolving. Neutrality remains essential. But it is cultural intelligence, grounded in humanity, that makes neutrality effective. And ultimately, it is that human dimension that allows parties, regardless of origin, to move from opposition toward resolution.

‍

Negotiations in high-stakes situations, often require navigating a complex dynamics. Whether negotiating on behalf of a country, organization, or individual, the stakes are often high, and the outcomes uncertain. A successful negotiator must be able to adapt to shifting dynamics, play multiple strategies simultaneously, and keep an eye on long-term goals while managing short-term hurdles. Beyond simple win-lose scenarios, effective negotiation involves understanding the nuances of the other side's motives, building and retaining trust, and sometimes finding areas where competition and cooperation can coexist. Let me emphasise a few points here.

1. Power Imbalance

At first glance, negotiating with a more powerful party might seem intimidating, as the imbalance of power often brings the assumption that money is power. But it’s important to remember that power is not solely defined by financial strength. Power can take many forms—informational, emotional, legal, charismatic, and beyond. By understanding the various types of power and recognizing which one you possess, you can approach the situation with greater confidence. Psychological tactics, like presenting yourself, can also go along way.

• Appearance: There’s a saying, "Clothes make the man," which suggests that people often judge based on outward appearance. However, as the full saying goes, "…but your mind later on," meaning true judgment comes from your actions, thoughts, and substance. In the context of complex negotiations, while it's important to present yourself professionally, it's just as important not to judge the worth of a negotiation partner based solely on their appearance. Wear what makes you feel comfortable and confident, but also shows that you take the negotiation seriously.
• Body language: While body language and gestures can reveal a great deal in negotiations, we must be careful when interpreting them. A single gesture may not tell the full story, and misreading body language could lead to misinterpretation. For example, it is often said that crossed arms indicate disengagement or defensiveness. However, this body language can also signal that someone is trying to gather their thoughts and stay composed. Like appearance, gestures should be interpreted in context and should not be seen as absolute signs of intention.
• Team Support: The presence of a team can influence the balance of power significantly. A well-coordinated team can support your position, provide diverse perspectives, and offer backup in tough moments. It's not enough to have people by your side. Success depends on integrating their input and ensuring everyone is aligned towards a shared goal. However, teams can also create internal challenges, as differing views and strategies may cause friction. Understanding the roles and strengths of your team members, and how they interact with the other side, can be as important as your personal strategy in influencing the negotiation's outcome.
  ‍

2. Playing with Strategies

Negotiation strategies are like puzzles; they work best when aligned with the other party’s approach. If one side is competitive, it might be wise to employ an accommodating or avoidant strategy to maintain the negotiation’s balance. However, strategic flexibility is essential. If one side chooses to collaborate on one issue, it doesn’t mean they will continue that strategy across all topics.

The key takeaway is that there are no “bad” strategies—only irrelevant ones if applied at the wrong moment. For instance, if one party is focused on collaboration while the other is in a competitive mindset, the negotiation is unlikely to succeed. There are times when avoidance can be an effective strategy, especially if the situation is not yet ripe for resolution. However, in real negotiations, I’ve witnessed many times when one side used avoidance, diminishing the importance of an issue and manipulating the other side.

Sometimes, the strategy of coopetition—balancing cooperation with competition—can offer a way forward, balancing mutual interests with priorities if the issue of mistrust is overcome.

‍

3. Different Scenarios

Negotiators must always anticipate various scenarios before, during and after the negotiation process. However, scenarios are just hypothetical. No one can predict exactly how things will unfold because real negotiations often deviate from expectations. The so-called "butterfly effect" plays a role here, as small, seemingly insignificant actions can ripple into major consequences. In high-stakes negotiations, understanding the real motives of the parties involved is key, but predicting them accurately is challenging.

‍

Conclusion

In high-stakes negotiations, everything—statements, actions, intentions—must be approached with caution and mindfulness. High-stakes negotiations are like navigating a stormy sea. The waters can shift unexpectedly, with undercurrents of power, trust, and strategy pulling in different directions. To reach a successful outcome, negotiators must steer carefully, adjusting their course as the winds of change blow. Power can take many forms, but true mastery lies in recognizing when to compete, when to cooperate, and when to retreat. Trust, once built, can anchor a negotiation, but it must be guarded, as it can erode quickly if not carefully maintained. Ultimately, the art of negotiation is not about winning every battle but understanding the deeper motives at play and navigating the complexities with insight and foresight. Like a captain steering through a storm, a skilled negotiator knows that every decision, no matter how small, can trigger a butterfly effect, where even the slightest move can have far-reaching consequences on the broader journey.

‍

Did you know that Walmart Inc. (USA), Volkswagen AG (Germany), Tata Group (India), LG Electronics Inc., Samsung Group (Korea) as many as other well-known companies are familybusinesses [1]? The biggest region for the share of family businesses in the world is Europe, with 43% in the world’s 750 family business ranking. According to “Family Capital”, the most family business countries are the United States and Germany. There is no statistics on the Kyrgyz Republic, but some of the known and successful companies such as “Shoro”, “Imarat Stroi”, “Kulikov”, and “Park Hotel Bishkek” are also family-owned businesses. In Sweden, over 60% of working-age population are occupied in family business. At first sight, family companies are the most sustainable entities, very often involving several generations and thriving for decades. At the same time, a family company is a quite risky enterprise in terms of conflict potential. In accordance with the Corporate Governance Professional Association, the vast majority of family businesses have a very short lifespan and only 5 (!) percent of family companies survive after the transition to the third generation of family owners [2]. The reasons for that are different and include contradicting business views, differing approaches, and unhealthy competition between family members. In some family companies, rivalry may appear simply because of psychological fear of the founder that he could be removed from the business scene by his close owners [3]. During ongoing crisis and unexpected economic, political and social changes, the position of family businesses is even more exacerbated. Corporate policies aimed at sustainability of family companies in fragile context are helpful but do not work for every case. Mediation is one of the anti-fragility mechanisms that is already used and undoubtedly should be utilized further by family business owners in all its three dimensions, including project mediation, deal mediation and mediation of disputes.

There is no better dispute resolution method than one that is applicable, reasonable and fits the nature of a dispute. But for family business disputes, mediation and mediation solely is highly recommended. Family business matters when personal and business relations are intertwined are very sensitive and, in addition to business knowledge, require empathy, creativity and a high level of emotional intelligence. In such cases, litigation may be even harmful. Sometimes disputes between siblings, children and parents, spouses turn into a battle of generations and war of the genders. When a dispute arises, it is challenging for parties to separate personal attitudes and business ones. Future of business is completely dependent on the showdown of personal relationships. Furthermore, the case can be even more complicated if family members are not only founders of the company but also occupy particular positions in it.

‍

Perhaps, the following recommendations, based on family business mediation experience, will be helpful or at least appear as food for thought for those who are starting or already have been running a family business for some time:

1) Be clear and honest when distributing the roles in the family business, so everybody knows what to expect and for what one is responsible.

2) Observe formalities and documentary requirements. In case of a dispute, gentlemen’s agreement will be a too weak argument to rely on.

3) Include independent directors in the Board of Directors, who are not affiliated neither with the owners nor with management.

4) If you live together with your relatives who are your business partners, make an effort not to discuss business issues at home, making your home place a space for pleasant time together with close ones.

5) Choose a dispute resolution method to be utilized in case of a dispute at the outset. When a dispute is already there and emotions are running high, it is quite difficult to agree on the mutually acceptable remedy method.

6) In case of a dispute, do not forget to ask yourself some very important questions: “What is most valuable and really matters for me?”, “How my decision will influence the relations with my relatives?”, “What will happen to the business itself and employees?” Honest answers may prevent from a short-lived and unwise decision.

7) Whether the disagreement is about business strategies, roles, responsibilities or some other related things within a family company, it is reasonable to apply for mediation at early stages. Do not wait until a disaster.

‍

Why to utilize mediation in family business?

Family business is not a case when business partners can simply split up in the occasion of disagreement. In family business issues, mediation deals with both relations and business interests. Even if parties decide to separate, mediation helps to preserve human relations. Mediation is confidential and for those who prefer home-business affairs are not talked publicly, mediation is a viable option. Last but not the least, in mediation, regardless of age, gender, point of view, role, and position, no one is criticized, judged, or ignored. In family business matters, the goal of mediation is to create enough space for every business-involved family member’s voice to be heard and valued.

‍

How does mediation provide anti-fragility to family business?

I am a vigorous proponent of differentiating mediation and conciliation. Mediation is not always about peace. Quite often, parties, especially business people, seek for a solution, not for peace. The goal of mediation is not to conciliate disputants, but to reconcile their interests and views, which, at the end of the day, bring sustainable outcome. At the same time, as it was mentioned above, mediation does not put aside the relationship part. Mediator helps family members to explore pros and cons of different approaches. Everyone feels comfortable and understands what is going on. A good example of how mediation can help, is demonstrated in the movie “Fairly Legal”: Kate, the mediator, is invited to facilitate disagreement between father and son regarding their clothing manufacture business because they were not able to reach an agreement on their own.

Anti-fragile mindset considers any problem as an opportunity not only to resist, but to grow. In addition to sorting out misunderstandings, mediation provides family businesses with the unique opportunity to find creative solutions, to build momentum for family business to prosper for the benefit of a family, community, city and country.

‍

[1] Family Capital, "The World's Top 750 Family Businesses Ranking"// https://www.famcap.com/the-worlds-750-biggest-family-businesses/

[2] A. Okunev, "The Specifics of Corporate Governance in Family Companies"//https://cgpa.com.ua/

[3] Harry Levinson, "Conflicts that Plague Family Businesses"// https://hbr.org/1971/03/conflicts-that-plague-family-businesses

‍

The Mediation Summit 2026, held in Dubai, brought together over 250 participants and 26 expert speakers from across the region and internationally for a full day of dialogue, insight, and forward-looking discussion on the evolving role of mediation in the UAE and across the MENA region.

Organized by the Dubai International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) in partnership with the Mediation Hub MENA, the Summit reflected the growing institutional commitment to mediation as a cornerstone of modern dispute resolution and business governance.

Opening the Summit, Robert Stephen, Registrar of DIAC, and Dr. Ahmad Alozn, PhD, Founder of The Mediation Hub MENA, set the tone for a day focused on credibility, integration, and scale. Their remarks emphasized mediation's expanding role within legal systems, commercial frameworks, and public-sector projects.

‍

Global Perspectives and Institutional Leadership

The Summit featured three major keynote addresses and five dynamic discussion panels, creating a comprehensive program that balanced strategic vision with practical application. Keynote speakers included H.E. Eng. Maysarah Eid, Director General of the Abu Dhabi Projects and Infrastructure Centre, Sir Robin Knowles, Judge of the UK High Court (Commercial Division), and H.E. Sarah Shaw, CEO of the National CSR Fund (MAJRA). Their interventions highlighted mediation's increasing relevance within judicial ecosystems and large-scale infrastructure and government projects, and the increasing reliance on collaborative dispute prevention. Furthermore, the Summit featured important participation by key and leading justice regulatory bodies from the UAE public sector, such as a very generous delegation both from the UAE Ministry of Justice, and the Government of Dubai Legal Affairs Department.

Panel I: International Trends and Local Developments, moderated by Christine Maksoud, Founder and Executive Director of The Mediation Hub MENA, explored global best practices and regional adoption. Panelists included Ali Al Aidarous, Gary Birnberg, and Shaikha Al Qattan, who examined how mediation frameworks are being implemented in practice across jurisdictions.

This was followed by Panel II: The Dispute Resolution Spectrum – When Mediation Makes Sense, moderated by Dr. Ahmad Alozn, Founder of The Mediation Hub MENA, bringing together representatives from arbitration, government, and corporate sectors to discuss how mediation integrates within the wider legal, commercial and financial ecosystems. The morning sessions concluded with a dedicated focus on Mediation and ESG, featuring remarks by H.E. Sarah Shaw, CEO of the National CSR Fund (MAJRA), underscoring mediation's role in translating ESG commitments into measurable, credible behavior.

‍

From Frameworks to Practice

The afternoon sessions shifted the focus from policy to practice. Panel III: Sector-Specific Disputes Relevant to the Region addressed real-world applications of mediation in high-stakes sectors. Part I, moderated by Kim Rosenberg of Freshfields LLP, focused on Construction, Infrastructure, and Development Disputes, featuring experienced international mediators and arbitrators. Part II, moderated by Henrietta Jackson, Founder of IPOS Mediation, examined Family Business and SME Disputes, highlighting that mediation in these contexts protects not only capital, but legacy, identity, and trust. A forward-looking presentation by Fabiola Keramidas, President of the Chamber of Conciliation, Arbitration and Intercultural Mediation (Brazil), addressed digitalization, confidentiality, cultural considerations, security, and the responsible use of AI tools in mediation.

‍

The Future of Mediation in the UAE

The Summit concluded with Panel IV: Mediation Challenges and Future Outlook, moderated by Zouhdi Yakan, with speakers examining innovation, data, technology, and market readiness. In her closing remarks, Christine Maksoud emphasized that while the UAE mediation ecosystem is rapidly taking shape – with laws, institutions, and trained professionals in place – legislation alone is not enough.

‍“The future of mediation will be shaped by the choices businesses make today,” she noted, echoing the Summit’s central message that mediation begins with listening – before positions harden and relationships break.

This message was reinforced through the launch of the UAE Mediation First Pledge, an initiative by The Mediation Hub MENA inviting businesses to commit to mediation before litigation, preserving value, protecting relationships, and resolving disputes efficiently without loss of time, control, or reputation.

‍

A Collective Effort

The Mediation Summit 2026 reaffirmed mediation's position as not only a legal mechanism, but a strategic business and governance tool, reflecting Winston Churchill's words cited during the Summit: “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen.”

As the UAE continues to position itself as a global dispute resolution hub, the Summit sent a clear message: choose mediation – before damage is done.

‍

Summit Statistics

The Summit drew strong participation from across the legal and business ecosystem, with 38% from legal services, 20% from regulatory authorities, and 10% from legal support sectors. The diverse audience also included representatives from consulting (9%), education (8%), and courts and dispute resolution centers (5%), underscoring mediation's relevance across professional sectors. Notably, 63% of attendees represented private sector organizations, with 27% from government and semi-government entities, reflecting the Summit's appeal to both private and public sectors. While 86% of participants are based in the UAE, 14% come from the MENA region, Europe, the Americas, highlighting the Summit's growing regional and international reach, and the international interest in the UAE as a hub of alternative dispute resolution services.

‍