Feelings, Values, and Mediation: A Journey Through the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM)

Share:

Learning the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM) challenged almost every mediation concept and approach I had used during my 15 years as a professional mediator. One of the trainers compared the experience to switching between Android and iPhones—it’s awkward. She’s right. Yet, it was much more challenging than switching between phones and worth every uncomfortable moment.

Whenever I mention the Inclusive Model of Mediation (IMM), colleagues are intrigued. They want to know how it works, where to get training, and how to learn more. This article addresses those questions while sharing the story of my own IMM journey, which began in 2016 at Community Day during the annual ACR conference in Baltimore, MD. Seven years later, I moved to Maryland and fully immersed myself in learning and working with the IMM approach. Along the way, I’ve gained insights into its technical aspects, unique mindset, and the vibrant community that sustains it.

IMM was developed by Community Mediation Maryland in 1995. It’s a mediation method that gets straight to the heart of participants’ issues by focusing on their feelings and what matters to them—their values. This approach may seem contrary to the classic ‘separate the people from the problem’ mindset that dominates many mediation approaches. However, it is
supported by long-established Nonviolent Communication (NVC) principles and neuroscience, proving that emotion is, at the very least, implicitly active in
every decision we make. 

Throughout a year-long journey, I studied and compared IMM with best practices learned from other mediation approaches. I learned to articulate more clearly what made IMM, in some ways, superior to different approaches and, in other ways, limiting if not concerning. The takeaways from diving deep into learning the core IMM approach and specialized advanced IMM topics such as Police Complaint mediation were surprising. The experiences added new best practices to my toolbox. They also provided profound clarity around the heart of cultural and marketplace challenges within the mediation profession — the well-known challenge of marketplace confusion about what mediation is, how it works, who is involved, and when which approach to mediation makes sense. There is no universal approach to mediation. ‘Best’ approaches to mediation are subjective and contextual. 

This article briefly compares IMM to the ‘basic’ approaches to mediation I learned when practicing in Maine and Massachusetts. It also references the philosophies of the Social Justice Mediation Institute’s (SJMI) approach, the Facilitate, Appreciate, Innovate, Resolve (FAIR) model, and the principles of Nonviolent Communication, collectively referred to as ‘other approaches.’ 

IMM is one of the most thoughtfully designed yet relatively obscure mediation approaches I’ve worked with. It’s a highly structured, meticulously crafted system seemingly designed to cultivate a competent volunteer force equipped to work with almost any population and topic in virtually any setting. Every phase—application, training, role-play, apprenticeship, certification, and continuing education—is intentional and detailed. IMM training excels at building community to the point that IMM is both a technical mediation model and a community mindset. 

Among its most important features is the model’s emphasis on identifying, naming, and working with participants’ feelings and values, which form the foundation of the process. IMM teaches mediators to reflect feelings using colloquial terms and to identify what matters most to participants – their values. In this sense, IMM is far superior to every other method I’ve trained in, with a close second being the SJMI’s focus on the dominant narrative and power imbalance.

Another impressive feature is IMM’s integrated co-mediator feedback structure. After mediation, mediators engage in a structured feedback process, including self-assessment (pluses for what went well and deltas for growth areas) and peer feedback. This approach goes beyond a typical debrief session in that peer feedback is mandatory and grounded in detailed skills lists. Mediators grow to anticipate feedback with collegial interest, not dread, fostering a culture of openness and shared continuous growth. Every pre-mediation session begins with mediators discussing their skill development goals and how they will collaboratively navigate the process to ensure thoughtful, growth-oriented feedback. The competition and anxiety that can exist in other co-mediation settings are happily missing. If I had a magic wand, every co-mediation model would adopt IMM’s pluses and deltas mindset.

Comparing the Key Features of IMM

Foundational IMM training distinguishes itself from other
forms of mediation training through many unique characteristics. A complete
comparison is beyond the scope of this article. The top 10 distinguishing features are:

1. Growth-Oriented Co-Mediation Model

IMM relies on co-mediators working in sync with a mutual focus on peer skills and community building. 

Other co-mediation models can be awkward and may not include IMM’s focus on building supportive, growth-oriented peer skills using the previously mentioned pluses and deltas feedback.

2. Vetted Access to Training

Access to ‘basic’ IMM training often requires completing substantial volunteer community outreach hours before being invited to a training. Training is typically free to the volunteer. However, trainees may also be asked to commit to 60 hours of volunteer mediating and ongoing training over two years. 

Mediator training in other non-academic approaches utilize a pay-to-play model, sometimes with a sliding scale or scholarship availability. Anyone can pay for and participate in training without up-front outreach, invitation, or commitment. Typically, attorneys who pay for training receive CLE credits.

3. Highly Structured Process

Every step is mapped out, from pre-mediation prep and scripted opening remarks to post-mediation feedback. Worksheets, reflection formulas, note-taking charts, and feelings/values word lists support co-mediators at every stage.

Aside from similarities in participation and fee agreements, other approaches vary widely in process-specific details and tools. For example, scripted openings were optional in court settings and nonprofit organizations I’ve worked with. Court or other state-specific cases came with forms and possibly calculation tools. The FAIR model offers a highly structured process and tools, primarily in the form of memorable acronyms and select scripted questions for participants navigating the statement preparation and delivery process.

4. IMM Discourages Use of Caucus

o   Pre-mediation conferences with participants are prohibited.

o   Mediators enter sessions with little information: a case number, participant contact details, and gender and race demographics.

o   Caucusing during mediation is available yet strongly discouraged and requires agreement from both mediators.

This was a significant shift for me. Mediating court cases always came with a file that served as a mediator briefing and sometimes an essential tool for the session. Family matters cases included time for caucuses, while other case types did not, though it was always an option. Many non-profit cases operated similarly with a joint opening, optional caucus, and return to a joint session. In private practice, I always schedule pre-mediation meetings with individuals. In the FAIR model, participants benefit from two hours of one-on-one time with the mediator before preparing a statement they will present in their joint session. IMM felt like going blind, which I’ve done before, but always with the option to caucus.

5. No Ground Rules for IMM Participants

o   There are no ground rules for participants, including the use of language, tone, interrupting, or topics discussed. They can talk about anything, cuss, and yell at each other for the entire two hours if they choose.

o   Basic IMM training includes language and role-play scenarios designed to desensitize mediators to words, tone, and topics they might find uncomfortable. 

o   IMM encourages mediators to use formulaic reflection on feelings and values whenever the opportunity arises but to intervene only in extreme situations or if problem-solving begins prematurely. This triggers mediators to invoke a process mapping reminder.

In other approaches, ground rules are optional, which can be a sticking point with co-mediators. For example, one mediator may prefer no ‘F’ words or a ‘no participant interruptions’ rule, while the other is comfortable letting participants go until it is obvious the language or interrupting is impeding the process. 

IMM’s training includes desensitizing language, which opens conversation and builds camaraderie among trainees. However, I wonder if this is necessary. Participant word choice has never troubled me, and I doubt it ever will. I suspect that holds true for many, if not most, mediators-in-training, too.

Telling participants that the ideas they generated would have to wait until process step 4, no matter how politely and carefully I did it, felt like I was shutting them down. IMM’s process focus felt distancing and counterintuitive in this frequently encountered situation. 

6. Unique Process Rules: Quantity vs. Quality and Calming vs. Escalating

o   IMM requires a specific number of feelings and unique value words before participants can move into the step 4 problem-solving stage.

o   Reflecting feelings may escalate rather than de-escalate tensions depending on word choice.

Participants may naturally begin problem-solving, yet they are held in an information-gathering stage. To move into the formal problem-solving stage, mediators must agree that each participant has named the same topic(s) and that the combined mediator notes reveal at least four unique values words for each participant. IMM’s formulaic process becomes the priority, which risks compromising participant momentum and undermining participant-driven resolution.

IMM mediators are taught to use feelings words that reflect strong emotions. For example, if a participant said, ‘I felt frustrated by the chores not being done,’ an IMM mediator might reflect, “Sounds like you were angry/outraged/disgusted, and that reliability and cleanliness are important to you. Is that correct?” While the participant used the word ‘frustrated,’ the mediator raised the emotional bar when reflecting ‘angry,’ ‘outraged,’ or ‘disgusted.’

IMM’s emphasis on using inflammatory or emotionally escalating language gets participants’ attention, yet it may also have unintended consequences, particularly outside the mediation room. Research on the impact of mediator word choice during IMM reflections would help clarify best practices.

7. Unique IMM Topic Identification and Framing Process

o   Topics are not identified before an IMM mediation. 

o   Instead, mediators use a “Grinder” process to select topics and ensure they are specific (typically one word) and non-blaming.

The Grinder is another important IMM tool. It supports mediators in determining which topics will advance to the problem-solving or brainstorming stage.

IMM topics are not pre-determined by the classification of cases or by participants. Mediators choose the topics based on what they’ve heard and validated in the information-gathering phase. Co-mediators discuss their notes before the participants and decide which words should become topics. They then apply a specific topic-framing formula read aloud for participants to accept, modify, or decline.

In other approaches, initial topics are typically identified before mediation begins. By contrast, IMM’s process—where mediators analyze participant interactions to select topics—felt patronizing to me. The absence of upfront issue specification and the participants’ inability to name primary and subtopics in their own words challenged my fundamental belief in the importance of participant voice and choice.

8. Core Focus on Feelings and Values

IMM incorporates Nonviolent Communication (NVC) and neuroscience principles to highlight the importance and impact of naming human feelings. NVC provides tools for identifying and connecting feelings with needs, while fMRI scans demonstrate that properly naming feelings has a calming effect on the brain.

IMM’s feelings and values reflection process involves a series of questions. For example, “I heard you say you were frustrated and that cleanliness is important. Is that correct?” The feeling is ‘frustrated,’ and the value is ‘cleanliness.’ In this way, attempts to name a feeling or value take the form of a guess, and there are no wrong guesses. If a participant disagrees with the guess, they typically work to clarify. Mediators offer more reflection guesses until the proper words are found.

The reflection process illustrates the calming and focused power of guessing someone’s feelings. Even if the guess is wrong, people feel acknowledged and will work to help the errant mediator get it right. In this sense, participants begin to calm down and can start to see themselves, the ‘Other,’ and possibly their situation in new ways.

While every mediation method incorporates active listening, IMM uniquely enhances this skill by teaching mediators to actively reflect—or thoughtfully guess—participants’ feelings and values. This approach bridges the gap between understanding participants’ experiences and identifying what truly matters to them—their values, which are related to but distinct from NVC’s focus on universal human needs. By making these thoughtful reflections, mediators help participants gain clarity, paving the way for effective goal setting and strategy development.

9. Exclusion of Reframing, Summarizing, Information Sharing, or Coaching

o   IMM’s formulaic reflection process is where the magic of feelings and values guesses happen.

o   However, IMM’s strict focus on reflection and prohibition of information sharing requires mediators to address participant questions by reflecting on feelings or values rather than providing direct answers. This approach risks undermining the benefits of acknowledging participants’ emotions and values by redirecting their focus and leaving their questions unanswered.

Other methods, in addition to the connective skills of building rapport and trust, typically involve reframing, summarizing, and sharing information. Coaching is also key in some models, such as the FAIR model. 

IMM prohibits information sharing to the extent that mediators are discouraged from directly answering participant questions, except for those related to the process map. Instead, mediators are required to respond by reflecting on participants’ feelings and values. In my experience, this substitution of direct answers with formulaic reflections often felt like a form of redirection that seemed to prioritize the process over the people involved.

This is where the magic of IMM fades. By redirecting participants in this way, I felt it risked sending an implicit message that the process, rather than the participants themselves, was the priority.

IMM’s process-driven focus led me to describe it as a ‘distancing’ model, especially when compared to other approaches that prioritize more direct connection and rapport with participants.

10.  Required Apprenticeship and Rigorous Certification Process

o   Basic IMM training includes an apprenticeship that requires observing mediations and completing 5–10 cases to receive a certificate of completion, which is not to be confused with becoming certified.

o   IMM certification goes well beyond basic training. Tiered professional certification involves recorded in-person and virtual mediation role plays and a committee evaluation based on nearly 100 finer points of the IMM process. 

With the exception of the FAIR model in the UK, which offers national accreditation, all of the training programs I’ve participated in provide certificates of participation. Every basic training program certificate allows mediators to self-declare as professionals. In the U.S., joining state court rosters often requires basic training (form or method of training typically unspecified) and a demonstrated history of mediated cases. The FAIR model offers a rigorous and globally respected national accreditation process, though ‘accreditation’ may not necessarily align with the concept of ‘certification’ as understood in the U.S. Most certifications in the U.S. remain tied to specific states, courts, or organizations.

Takeaways

I missed the connective magic that often happens when participants feel heard and ready to collaborate—even before mediation begins, during a pre-mediation caucus. IMM’s prohibition on pre-mediation frequently left me feeling underprepared to fully work with individuals’ unique contexts, needs, and goals.

IMM fosters a sense of community that is truly unique. Building connections begins with the first conversation and continues through every meeting, from the initial training day to ongoing discussions and even social events. Meetings start and end with a gathering circle, where participants forgo name tags to encourage relationship building. Opening gatherings include a question that each participant answers in turn around the circle. When someone shares a particularly moving or relevant response, others show support through finger snaps or symbolic sizzle gestures, reinforcing a culture of encouragement and belonging.

IMM’s emphasis on community building is one of its greatest strengths, fostering connection and belonging among mediators. However, like any tightly knit group, it can sometimes reflect the challenges of in-group and out-group dynamics. For instance, I was disheartened to hear aspiring mediators discouraged from exploring national associations or other mediation methods and overhear dismissive comments about different approaches.

In other states, individual mediator styles are often encouraged. While Maryland courts commendably recognize five distinct mediation approaches, it’s important to remember that every other method can be just as valid and effective as the ‘Maryland Five,’ each offering valuable lessons and perspectives that enrich the broader practice and profession of mediation.

While IMM trainers are working hard to expand the model nationally, its growth may face challenges unless it addresses and overcomes the cultural norm of silence surrounding mediation processes. Boldly declaring what the IMM mediation process entails—how it works, who is involved, and why it matters—is essential for IMM to gain the recognition it deserves. As the only model to emphasize elements of emotional intelligence in the mediation room, IMM has a powerful and distinct role in the profession and should be marketed as such.

In conclusion, IMM’s intentionality and rigor make it a thoughtfully designed and impactful approach to mediation. I hope to see it become more widely available and for more mediators to pursue IMM trainer certification. While IMM training is still primarily offered in Maryland, there are promising signs of expansion, with trainers now collaborating with groups in Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Louisiana.

To learn more about IMM training, visit the Community Mediation Maryland website.