One of the most challenging yet crucial tools in mediation is the questioning technique. I like to refer to it as the art of questioning because it truly reflects the skill and wisdom of a mediator. In the mediation process, the ability to ask the right questions is not just a skill but an art form that can significantly influence the outcome. Mediators play a vital role in guiding conflicting parties toward resolution, and effective questioning is at the heart of this process.

Open questions, which invite expansive responses, are instrumental in uncovering underlying interests and feelings. For instance, asking, “What concerns do you have about this situation?” encourages parties to express their thoughts and emotions freely. This exploration fosters understanding and empathy, both of which are essential components in resolving disputes.

Conversely, closed questions serve a different purpose. They help clarify facts or confirm specific details. A question like, “Did you agree on the terms of the contract?” quickly establishes a focal point for discussion. Both types of questions are essential, as they enable the mediator to navigate the dialogue effectively.

Additionally, the techniques of “chunking up” and “chunking in” can enhance questioning strategies. Chunking up involves asking broader questions to help parties see the bigger picture, while chunking in focuses on specific details to clarify misunderstandings. Together, these techniques equip mediators to facilitate meaningful conversations that lead to genuine resolutions.

In summary, mastering the art of questioning empowers mediators to create a safe space for dialogue, allowing conflicting parties to move from confrontation to cooperation. Embracing this skill not only enhances the mediation process but also cultivates a culture of understanding and collaboration.

A dispute emerged between a government body and a private education technology provider over the interpretation of a Call-Off Contract for a national pool of teachers. The government believed its termination notice ended the agreement with no further financial obligations, while the supplier insisted that six months’ notice had to be given before the next renewal date, entitling it to a full year’s fees. What began as a disagreement over contract terms quickly grew into a conflict that threatened litigation, unpaid fees, reputational harm, and a breakdown in cooperation.

To resolve this impasse, the parties agreed to mediation. Conducted online over a single day, both sides were represented by legal and commercial teams. Wolf von Kumberg, the mediator, guided the process with a facilitative and evaluative style. A joint session clarified the issues, followed by private caucuses where shuttle diplomacy allowed him to test proposals, reframe positions, and redirect the focus from legal arguments to business solutions.

Key tools played a decisive role. Issue mapping broke the dispute into manageable topics — from termination terms and payment to reputation and future relationships — revealing areas of overlap. Through option development, the parties explored creative settlement packages with different payment structures and contract scenarios. Reframing helped shift the narrative away from “who was right on the contract” toward “how to preserve value and manage risk going forward.” Positioning any payment as an act of goodwill, rather than an admission of liability, also made it possible for both sides to save face.

By the end of the day, the dispute transformed into a constructive agreement. The parties decided to terminate the existing contract from the date of the government’s notice, with a lump-sum payment equivalent to several months of licence fees. At the same time, they signed a new agreement covering a smaller number of authorities, with flexibility to expand later. A clear exit plan and data governance measures ensured compliance with GDPR and a smooth transition. Importantly, they issued a joint public statement framing the outcome as a policy shift, not a platform failure, protecting reputations on both sides.

The result was a win-win: the supplier secured guaranteed payment and preserved a valuable relationship, while the government capped its financial exposure, avoided litigation risk, and ensured continuity of service. This case demonstrates how structured negotiation, option-building, and skilled mediation can turn a contentious contractual dispute into a pragmatic, forward-looking settlement.

‍

A major dispute arose between a South Asian manufacturer of home appliances and a Middle Eastern distributor. The two companies had signed a contract worth USD 13.4 million for the shipment of 100,000 units. After only 30% of the order was completed, the relationship deteriorated. The distributor raised concerns about delays in the first shipments and claimed that certain units showed quality inconsistencies. On the other hand, the manufacturer accused the distributor of withholding the second installment of payment, which was clearly outlined in the contract. The disagreement escalated quickly, with both sides threatening to terminate the contract and pursue legal action, putting years of cooperation and trust at serious risk.

How the Mediation Process Was Conducted I was invited to intervene as a mediator to help prevent the collapse of the deal. My first step was to conduct separate intake meetings with both parties, during which I explained the principles of confidentiality, neutrality, and the process we would follow. Each party submitted a written statement summarizing their grievances. These initial discussions revealed the true underlying interests: the distributor was deeply concerned about its reputation in the Middle Eastern retail market if it delivered products with quality issues, while the manufacturer’s priority was ensuring steady cash flow to sustain production and avoid factory disruptions.

When the first joint session began, the distributor expressed frustration about the shipment delays and the risk of damaged credibility with its retail clients. The manufacturer responded strongly, highlighting the significant costs already incurred and the financial pressure from the withheld payment. Both sides initially used accusatory language such as unreliable and bad faith. My role was to reframe these terms into neutral and constructive concerns, translating unreliable partner into need for reliability, and bad faith into need for assurance of commitment. This shift in language helped lower tensions and allowed us to set a clear agenda around three key issues: the release of pending payments, the quality assurance process, and the timeline for completing the remaining shipments.

In the following caucus sessions, I met privately with each party. Using BATNA and WATNA analysis, I guided them through the consequences of litigation compared with negotiated settlement. Both sides realized that going to court would not only drain resources but could also jeopardize their positions in their respective markets. With this understanding, they became more open to negotiation.

During the extended joint negotiation, I introduced tools to facilitate clarity and constructive problem-solving. We developed a shared timeline map that illustrated production, delivery dates, inspection reports, and payment obligations. This visual removed much of the ambiguity that had fueled mistrust. We also used an option-generation matrix to explore different settlement structures, such as staged payments tied to third-party inspection results and revised shipment schedules. At critical moments, I employed structured silence, giving the parties space to process proposals without reacting defensively. This encouraged deeper reflection and made them more willing to explore compromise.

‍

Tools and Strategies That Proved Helpful:

● Reframing accusatory language into constructive needs.

● BATNA and WATNA analysis to highlight the risks of litigation versus settlement.

● Shared timeline maps to visualize obligations and deadlines.

● Option-generation matrix for structured solutions.

● Strategic use of silence to allow reflection.

‍

Outcome and Settlement Ultimately, the mediation produced a comprehensive settlement:

● The distributor agreed to release 50% of the pending payment, amounting to USD 2 million, within ten days.

● The manufacturer committed to replacing any defective units verifi ed by a neutral inspection agency.

● A new shipment plan was established, with 20% of the total order delivered every two months, each batch cleared through the inspection agency before payment release.

● A joint review committee, consisting of one representative from each company and an independent auditor, was created to meet quarterly.

● Both sides agreed not to make public statements about the dispute, protecting their reputations and maintaining confidence in both markets.

‍

The mediation concluded with the signing of a binding settlement agreement. Instead of entering a costly and uncertain legal battle, both sides preserved a lucrative business relationship. Six months later, the shipment schedule was back on track, payments were being made on time, and the distributor extended new purchase orders beyond the original contract. What began as a dispute threatening to destroy trust ultimately became an opportunity to strengthen cooperation through structured mediation.

‍

The conflict began between two business partners who had co-founded a small consulting fi rm. After years of working together, disagreements emerged over how profi ts should be distributed and which strategic path the company should take. What started as minor differences soon escalated into a serious dispute—serious enough that both partners considered dissolving the business entirely.

In search of an alternative, they voluntarily agreed to mediation. From the outset, the process was carefully structured. The first stage focused on preparation: setting ground rules such as confidentiality, respectful communication, and equal turn-taking. This laid the foundation for a safe and balanced discussion.

The second stage was about storytelling and exploration. Each partner was given the chance to share their perspective without interruption. Active listening and reframing played a crucial role here, helping to reduce hostility and clarify the real needs that lay beneath the financial conflict. This stage allowed both parties to recognize that the dispute was not just about numbers but about future expectations and trust.

The third stage moved toward problem-solving and agreement-building. I facilitated brainstorming sessions where different options were generated, compared, and negotiated. Tools proved especially useful here: a whiteboard was used to map out each partner’s financial contributions, roles, and expectations, giving the conversation an objective anchor. Another strategy, “option packaging,” grouped potential solutions into balanced proposals so that both partners felt a sense of gain rather than loss.

At the conclusion of the process, a written agreement was reached. One partner would buy out the other’s shares under a structured 12-month payment plan. Together, they also prepared a joint statement for their clients to preserve both reputations and ensure business continuity.

The outcome was not just a settlement but a transformation. Both partners expressed relief and satisfaction. Mediation allowed them to part ways respectfully, without costly litigation, and with their professional relationship and reputations intact. This case serves as a clear reminder that mediation is not only about resolving disputes—it is about preserving dignity, relationships, and future opportunities.

‍