Learning Objectives
- Understand how clients' context, culture, and systemic factors shape mediation
- Recognise the importance of client-centred, trauma-informed, and child-focused practice
- Reflect critically on the appropriateness and timing of mediator interventions
- Evaluate whether interventions support fairness, safety, and client autonomy
"See the whole person, not just the problem."
Lens 1 focuses on understanding the client — their background, culture, relationships, emotions, and the systemic contexts that shape their experience. In supervision, this lens helps mediators move beyond the presenting conflict to understand what clients bring to the table: their values, fears, histories, and the broader systems in which they operate. By centring the client, supervisors help mediators develop trauma-informed, culturally responsive, and child-focused practice.
What is Lens 1?
Lens 1 asks: Who are the clients? What is their world? This lens directs supervision towards understanding the people involved in mediation, their lived experiences, and the contexts that shape their choices and behaviours.
Key Focus Areas
- Client's world: Their circumstances, relationships, concerns, and priorities
- Cultural and social contexts: How background, identity, and community influence communication and conflict resolution
- Emotional and relational dimensions: Attachment, trust, fear, grief, and how these affect participation
- Systemic factors: Poverty, discrimination, health issues, and structural barriers
- Power dynamics: Coercion, control, dependency, and historical power imbalances
- Intersectionality: How multiple identities (gender, race, class, disability, religion) overlap and compound vulnerability
Purpose in Supervision
Supervision using Lens 1 helps mediators:
- Develop empathy and cultural humility
- Recognise signs of trauma, coercion, and vulnerability
- Adapt mediation processes to protect safety and autonomy
- Challenge assumptions and unconscious biases
- Centre client needs, not just procedural efficiency
Supervisor Prompts for Lens 1
- Tell me about the clients — who are they as people?
- What was the client's experience of the session? How did they feel heard?
- What did you notice about power dynamics between the parties?
- Were there any signs of cultural differences affecting communication?
- Did you notice anything suggesting trauma, fear, or coercion?
- How did the process adapt to the clients' needs and capacities?
- What did you learn about the clients' priorities and what matters to them?
Application in Supervision
When exploring Lens 1, supervisors invite mediators to slow down and reflect on the human dimensions of their work. Rather than focusing on what the mediator did, the lens shifts focus to who was in the room and what the clients needed. This creates space for mediators to develop deeper understanding of their clients and to notice when their own assumptions might be getting in the way of truly seeing the people they serve.
Lens 1 comprises six interconnected components that help supervisors and mediators explore the client's world in depth.
1. Understand the Client's World
What this means: Going beyond the presenting problem to understand the client's lived experience — their daily realities, relationships, constraints, and what they care about most.
In practice: A mediator listens to the client's story — not just the facts of the conflict, but the emotional context. What keeps them awake at night? What are they most afraid of? What would a good outcome look like for them, and why?
Supervisor prompt: "What did the client tell you about their life outside this conflict? What matters most to them, and what are they afraid of losing?"
2. Cultural and Social Contexts
What this means: Recognising that clients come from different cultural backgrounds, communities, and social positions that shape how they communicate, make decisions, and experience conflict.
In practice: A client may avoid eye contact as a sign of respect, not evasion. Another may prioritise family or community consensus over individual preferences. Some may have experienced discrimination or be wary of formal systems. Mediators attune to these contexts.
Supervisor prompt: "What cultural or social contexts are shaping this client's approach? Have you asked about their background or how they prefer to be engaged?"
3. Emotions and Relationships
What this means: Understanding the emotional landscape — grief, anger, shame, fear, attachment — and how past and present relationships affect how clients show up.
In practice: A client may be angry, but underneath is deep grief about loss or betrayal. Understanding the emotional root helps the mediator respond with appropriate compassion and interventions that address what's really present.
Supervisor prompt: "What emotions did you notice? What might be underneath the anger or defensiveness? How did the relationship history affect the session?"
4. Systemic Factors
What this means: Recognising that clients are affected by systems beyond the conflict — poverty, housing insecurity, health conditions, immigration status, disability, access to services.
In practice: A parent struggling with substance use, a refugee with language barriers, someone living with disability, a person experiencing homelessness — these realities shape capacity, choices, and outcomes in mediation. Mediators notice and account for these.
Supervisor prompt: "What systemic factors are affecting this client's capacity or choices? Are there barriers to participation or outcomes that mediation alone cannot address?"
5. Power in Relationships
What this means: Identifying imbalances of power — historical, physical, economic, emotional — that may limit one client's ability to participate freely or safely.
In practice: A mediator notices that one parent dominates conversation, uses intimidating body language, or has a history of controlling behaviour. The other parent may be fearful or withdrawn. Recognising this, the mediator adapts to protect fairness and safety.
Supervisor prompt: "Did you notice any power imbalances? Did both parties feel safe to speak? Were there signs of coercion, control, or fear?"
6. Intersectionality
What this means: Understanding that clients hold multiple identities — gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, religion — and that these intersect to shape their experience of power, vulnerability, and systemic discrimination.
In practice: A single mother living in poverty who is also a person of colour and has a disability experiences mediation differently than someone with economic privilege and no marginalised identities. Intersectionality reminds mediators to look beyond single categories and see the full picture.
Supervisor prompt: "What identities do the clients hold? How do multiple identities intersect to shape their experience and their position in this conflict?"
Scenario 1: Cultural Nuances in Communication
Setting: Joint mediation session between a Japanese parent and an Australian parent about parenting arrangements.
The situation: During the session, the Japanese parent speaks quietly, avoids eye contact, and asks the mediator many clarifying questions before responding to the other parent. The Australian parent becomes frustrated, interpreting the behaviour as evasive or uncooperative. The Australian parent says, "You're not engaging. You won't even look at me."
The mediator's initial response: The mediator notices the tension but is unsure how to interpret the Japanese parent's behaviour. Is this a power dynamic issue? Is the parent uncomfortable or disengaged?
Lens 1 Perspective:
Through Lens 1, the mediator explores the client's world. The mediator might privately ask the Japanese parent about their communication style and preferences. The parent explains: "In my culture, avoiding direct eye contact is a sign of respect. We don't make eye contact with people we respect. It means I am taking this seriously." The parent also explains that they prefer to think carefully before responding and value clarity about what is being discussed.
Application:
- The mediator reframes for the Australian parent: "Different cultures have different communication styles. In some cultures, eye contact shows respect, in others, avoiding eye contact shows respect. This isn't about engagement or sincerity."
- The mediator adapts the process: builds in thinking time, clarifies proposals before responses are expected, and explains cultural differences to both parties.
- The mediator returns to Lens 1 regularly: What is each parent's need? What does good communication look like in their culture? How can the mediation process honour both cultural frames?
Supervisor Questions:
- How did you recognise the cultural dimension of the communication difference?
- What did you learn about each client's cultural context and values?
- How did you adapt the process to honour both cultural approaches?
- What assumptions were you making, and how did Lens 1 help you see past them?
Scenario 2: Trauma-Informed Awareness
Setting: Mediation between separated parents, now discussing property settlement and ongoing contact arrangements.
The situation: One parent (let's call her Sarah) has a history of domestic violence. She left the relationship five years ago, and the couple has been separated for three years. The mediator notices that Sarah becomes visibly anxious when the other parent (Mark) speaks. She checks her phone frequently, touches her neck, and her responses are brief and guarded. When Mark suggests they extend the session to cover more ground, Sarah says flatly, "No. I need to leave."
The mediator's initial response: The mediator interprets Sarah's behaviour as resistance or unwillingness to engage. The mediator thinks: "She's not cooperating. She won't settle anything at this rate."
Lens 1 Perspective:
Through Lens 1, the mediator steps back and looks at the whole person. The mediator recognises the signs of trauma: hypervigilance, checking surroundings, physical anxiety responses. The mediator understands that Sarah's body is signalling danger — a learned response from years of abuse. Her need to leave the session is not about obstruction; it's about self-protection.
Application:
- The mediator respects Sarah's need to end the session: "I hear that you need to leave. Let's wrap up here."
- The mediator creates safety: shorter sessions, clear agendas, maybe shuttle mediation (separate meetings) rather than joint sessions.
- The mediator reflects with Sarah: "I noticed you seemed anxious. Is there anything we can do to make you feel safer in these sessions?" This opens space for Sarah to disclose her needs without shame.
- The mediator understands that Sarah's capacity to negotiate is genuine and limited by her history; pace and safety are prerequisites to progress.
Supervisor Questions:
- What signs of trauma or distress did you observe, and how did you respond?
- How did understanding the client's history of trauma change your interpretation of her behaviour?
- What adaptations did you make to protect safety and increase her sense of control?
- How might you have responded differently without Lens 1? What did you learn about trauma-informed practice?
Scenario 3: Child-Centred Considerations
Setting: Family mediation with parents negotiating a 50/50 parenting arrangement.
The situation: Both parents love their child and want equal time. They're locked in an argument about school drop-off logistics. Parent A wants to stick with the school near their home (which the child currently attends). Parent B wants the child to attend a school near their new home, even though it's further away. Parent A is angry: "You're trying to uproot our child to suit yourself. It's not about what's best for them." Parent B is defensive: "I'm the parent, I have rights. And the school is just as good."
The mediator's initial response: The mediator tries to problem-solve the logistics — school lists, drop-off times, costs — but the conversation goes in circles.
Lens 1 Perspective:
Through Lens 1, the mediator pauses the logistics and focuses on the child. What would the child experience? The child is five years old, just settled into school, has friends and routines. Changing schools means loss — loss of familiarity, friends, routine. The child will spend half their time in each parent's home. What does the child need to stay grounded and secure in two homes?
Application:
- The mediator reframes the conversation: "Let's think about what the child needs. Your daughter is five. She's just made friends at her current school. How will this change affect her sense of stability?"
- The mediator explores: Does the child have attachment to the current school? Will there be time for the child to adjust? What supports does the child need in each home?
- The mediator invites both parents to centre the child's experience: "What matters most to your daughter? Where does she feel safest? What would help her feel secure in two homes?"
- The mediator explores options with the child's perspective central: Could the child stay at the current school (both parents' priority becomes transport/logistics, not uprooting)? Could they introduce the new school gradually? Could they delay the change until the child is more settled?
Supervisor Questions:
- How did you centre the child's perspective and needs?
- What did you learn about how the child would experience this change?
- How did focusing on the child shift the parents' perspective?
- What child-focused outcomes emerged that the parents might not have seen on their own?
Academic Insights and Frameworks
Hawkins & Shohet (Supervision in the Helping Professions): This foundational work on supervision emphasizes the importance of exploring the client system — who the client is, their context, and their needs — as a core supervisory task. The authors argue that supervisors help practitioners see beyond the presenting problem to understand the whole person.
Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Model: This framework reminds us that clients are not isolated individuals but are embedded in multiple systems: immediate family (microsystem), community and school (mesosystem), broader culture and policies (exosystem), and time (chronosystem). Understanding the client means understanding these layers. A child in mediation is affected by their family, their school, their cultural community, and the historical context of their family's experience.
Crenshaw's Intersectionality: This critical framework highlights that people hold multiple social identities that interact and compound. A person might be a woman (gender), a person of colour (race), living in poverty (class), and disabled (ability). These don't add up; they intersect. The experience of a white, middle-class woman is different from the experience of a Black, working-class woman. Mediation practice that centres the client must attend to intersectionality.
Supervision Implications
Slowing down: Lens 1 invites mediators to slow down and stay curious about clients rather than rushing to solutions. It asks: Before we problem-solve, do we truly understand who this person is and what they need?
Challenging assumptions: Supervision with Lens 1 helps mediators notice their own assumptions and biases. When a mediator judges a client (as evasive, uncooperative, difficult), Lens 1 asks: What might I be missing? What is the client's perspective on their own behaviour?
Building cultural humility: Rather than assuming mediators have or can develop cultural competence, Lens 1 invites ongoing learning and humility. Supervisors support mediators in asking clients about their background, preferences, and needs, and in acknowledging what they don't know.
Recognising trauma: Lens 1 helps mediators develop literacy in trauma responses. Hypervigilance, dissociation, emotional flooding, and withdrawal are not character flaws or obstruction; they are normal responses to threat. Supervisors help mediators learn to recognise these and respond with safety and compassion.
Prioritising safety: When Lens 1 reveals power imbalances, coercion, or threat, the mediation process must adapt. Fairness means more than procedural equality; it means safety and autonomy for all parties.
Reflective Questions for Supervisors and Mediators
- Who are the clients in this conflict? What is their world like — their daily life, their relationships, their fears and hopes?
- What cultural backgrounds do the clients come from, and how might this shape how they communicate and make decisions?
- What emotions are present beneath the presenting problem? What is the emotional history between these people?
- What systemic factors — poverty, health, immigration status, disability — affect the clients' capacity or choices?
- Are there power imbalances in this relationship? How might fear, coercion, or control be affecting participation?
- What identities do the clients hold (gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, religion, etc.), and how do these intersect?
- What assumptions am I making about the clients? Where might I be wrong?
- If I truly saw and honoured the clients' world, how might the mediation process change?
"Effective interventions aren't just techniques — they're intentional, ethical, and client-centred."
Lens 2 focuses on the mediator's practice — the specific interventions used in mediation and whether they are appropriate, ethical, and truly serving the clients. In supervision, this lens helps mediators reflect critically on their choices: Why did I intervene? Was it timely? Did it serve fairness, safety, and autonomy, or did it reflect my own agenda or assumptions? This lens is about intentionality, timing, and the ethical use of mediator power.
What is Lens 2?
Lens 2 asks: What did the mediator do, and why? Was the intervention necessary, appropriate, and ethical? This lens directs supervision towards examining the mediator's choices, techniques, and impact on the clients and the mediation process.
Key Focus Areas
- Intervention techniques: Reframing, reality testing, brainstorming, caucus, shuttle mediation, etc.
- Ethical and procedural alignment: Are interventions consistent with mediation values and the agreement to mediate?
- Flexibility and creativity: Is the mediator adapting techniques to serve clients, or rigidly applying a model?
- Power dynamics: Is the mediator using their power responsibly, or imposing their view?
- Use of silence and non-verbal communication: Does the mediator create space for clients to speak, or fill silence?
- Emotional regulation: Does the mediator stay grounded and responsive, or reactive?
Purpose in Supervision
Supervision using Lens 2 helps mediators:
- Develop intentionality — being clear about why they choose particular interventions
- Expand their toolkit — learning new techniques and when to use them
- Notice impact — understanding how their interventions land with clients
- Use power ethically — recognising their authority and using it responsibly
- Adapt flexibly — moving away from one-size-fits-all approaches
- Centre clients — ensuring interventions serve client needs, not mediator convenience
Supervisor Prompts for Lens 2
- Walk me through the intervention you made. What were you noticing, and what was your intention?
- Why did you choose that technique in that moment? What else might you have done?
- How did the clients respond to your intervention? Did it move things forward?
- Were you following the clients' pace, or pushing your own agenda?
- Did you notice any moment where you were reactive rather than responsive?
- How did your own thoughts, feelings, or triggers show up in your practice?
- What might you do differently next time?
Application in Supervision
When exploring Lens 2, supervisors help mediators step back and examine their choices with curiosity and honesty. Rather than judging whether something was "right" or "wrong," the lens invites reflection on intention, impact, and ethics. What was the mediator trying to do? Why? Did it work? What could be different? This creates space for mediators to develop critical consciousness about their practice.
Lens 2 comprises six interconnected components that help supervisors and mediators examine interventions in depth.
1. Assess Intervention Techniques
What this means: Understanding the range of techniques available to mediators and when each is most appropriate.
In practice: Common techniques include reframing (restating a concern in neutral language), brainstorming (generating options without judgment), reality testing (exploring feasibility or consequences), caucus (meeting privately with one party), validation (acknowledging feelings), and summarising (reflecting back what has been said). Each technique has a purpose and timing.
In supervision: A supervisor might ask: "You chose to reframe that statement. Tell me what the parent said, what you understood, and why you reframed it that way. What impact did the reframe have?" This helps the mediator develop clarity about technique and intention.
Supervisor prompt: "What techniques did you use in this session? For each one, why did you choose it, and what were you hoping would happen?"
2. Ethical and Procedural Alignment
What this means: Ensuring that interventions are consistent with mediation values (neutrality, self-determination, fairness) and with the agreement that clients made to participate.
In practice: If a client agreed to mediation on the understanding that it would be confidential, the mediator cannot share details with their lawyer. If neutrality is essential to the process, the mediator cannot take a position on what the "right" outcome should be. If self-determination is valued, the mediator cannot pressure clients to agree.
In supervision: A supervisor might notice that a mediator has subtly pushed one client's proposal over another's. The supervisor asks: "Whose outcome was that — the client's or yours? How might you have held space for both options without steering?"
Supervisor prompt: "Did your intervention align with the mediation values and agreement? Were you consistent with what you promised the clients at the start?"
3. Flexibility and Creativity
What this means: Adapting mediation techniques and processes to fit the clients' needs and circumstances, rather than rigidly following a single model.
In practice: A mediator might typically run joint mediation, but recognises that one client is terrified of the other. The mediator flexibly switches to shuttle mediation (separate meetings). A mediator might plan to brainstorm in a particular way, but notices that the clients need more time to be heard first, so pauses brainstorming and extends validation.
In supervision: A supervisor might ask: "The mediation didn't follow your plan. What did you notice that made you shift? How did that serve the clients?"
Supervisor prompt: "Where did you need to adapt your usual approach? What made you flexible, and how did that change things?"
4. Power Dynamics in Mediation
What this means: Recognising that the mediator holds significant power — the power to shape the process, to allow or silence voices, to sanction certain outcomes as "fair" — and using that power consciously and ethically.
In practice: A mediator who frequently validates one client's perspective and rarely validates the other's is using power unevenly. A mediator who cuts off a client's story or dismisses their concern is using power to silence. A mediator who repeatedly offers their own ideas is using power to direct. Ethical use of power means the mediator is aware of this and uses it to enhance fairness and safety, not to impose outcomes.
In supervision: A supervisor might notice: "The mother spoke for 10 minutes about her concerns. The father spoke for 2 minutes before you interrupted to brainstorm. How did that affect fairness?" This helps the mediator see the power they hold and use it more intentionally.
Supervisor prompt: "Whose voices were heard in this session? Whose were quieted? How did your choices about who to validate, interrupt, or silence reflect your use of power?"
5. Silence and Non-Verbal Communication
What this means: Understanding that what the mediator does not say is as important as what they do say. Silence creates space for clients to think, feel, and speak. Non-verbal communication — body language, tone, facial expression — communicates volumes.
In practice: A mediator who is anxious might fill silences, preventing clients from processing or working through difficulty. A mediator whose face shows judgment might prevent a client from being fully honest. A mediator whose body language closes (crossed arms, turned away) might communicate rejection. A mediator who sits quietly and openly might invite deeper sharing.
In supervision: A supervisor might ask: "There was a long pause after the parent shared something painful. What were you thinking in that moment? Did you feel pressure to respond, or could you sit with the silence?"
Supervisor prompt: "What did you notice about your use of silence? Where did you find it easy to be quiet, and where did you rush to fill silence? What impact did that have?"
6. Emotional Regulation
What this means: The mediator's capacity to stay grounded, present, and responsive — not reactive — in the face of the clients' strong emotions or conflict.
In practice: A client becomes angry or tearful. If the mediator becomes anxious or uncomfortable, they might rush to problem-solve, dismiss the emotion, or defend themselves. If the mediator stays grounded, they can stay present with the emotion, help the client express it safely, and move forward with clarity. A mediator's own triggers (anger, rejection, injustice) might activate in response to clients' stories. If unaware, the mediator might unconsciously judge or favour one client. If aware, the mediator can notice and manage their own response.
In supervision: A supervisor might ask: "When the parent accused you of bias, I noticed you tightened up. What was happening for you in that moment? How did your response affect the session?"
Supervisor prompt: "Where were you triggered or emotionally activated in this session? How did you notice and manage your own response? What support do you need?"
Scenario 1: Overuse of Reframing
Setting: Mediation between ex-partners about ongoing parenting support.
The situation: The mother says, "You've never been there for our child. You miss visits, you don't pay attention, and it's like you don't care." The father becomes defensive. The mediator quickly reframes: "So what I hear is that you'd like your child to have more focused time with Dad." The mother says, "No, that's not what I said. I said he doesn't care." The mediator reframes again: "You're hoping for more engaged parenting." The mother gives up and goes silent.
The mediator's thinking: "I'm helping by softening the language and finding common ground. I'm being neutral and professional."
Lens 2 Perspective:
Through Lens 2, the supervisor invites the mediator to examine the reframing. The reframes were technically skilled (softening language, finding the underlying interest), but they silenced the mother's actual experience. The mother needed to be heard — her frustration, her pain, her view that the father has not been present. Reframing too early, or without first validating her truth, used the mediator's power to smooth over her concern rather than to help it be understood.
Application:
- The supervisor helps the mediator see: "You reframed three times before the mother felt heard. What if you had first said something like, 'I hear that you've felt let down, and that's painful'?"
- The mediator learns that reframing is not always the first move. Sometimes, validation comes first. Sometimes, the client's actual words — however heated — need to be fully heard and acknowledged before they can move to a softer frame.
- The mediator reflects: "I was uncomfortable with her anger. I was trying to make it manageable. But my reframing made her feel unheard, not understood."
- Next time, the mediator might say: "I hear that you've felt he isn't present for your child, and that's really frustrating and hurtful. Tell me more about that." Then, later, if it seems helpful, offer a reframe.
Supervisor Questions:
- Why did you reframe in that moment? What were you trying to accomplish?
- How did the mother respond to the reframe? Did she feel heard?
- What if you had validated her experience first before reframing?
- What were you uncomfortable with, and how did that drive your intervention?
Scenario 2: Timing of Reality Testing
Setting: Property settlement mediation.
The situation: One party (Alex) has proposed keeping the family home and paying the other party (Jordan) a lump sum. The proposal is actually not financially feasible — Alex doesn't have the capacity to both keep the house and pay what's proposed. The mediator, sensing this, immediately moves into reality testing: "How will you afford the payment if you keep the house? Have you had a financial adviser review this?" Alex becomes defensive and stops engaging. The mediator moves forward, but the session stalls.
The mediator's thinking: "I was helping them see reality. It's not feasible."
Lens 2 Perspective:
Through Lens 2, the supervisor helps the mediator see that while reality testing is important, timing matters. Alex had just made a proposal — a gesture towards Jordan. Reality testing immediately made Alex feel criticized and unheard. Alex withdrew rather than opening up to explore the financial realities.
Application:
- First, the mediator might validate: "I hear that keeping the home is important to you. You're trying to find a way to honour both — keeping the house and being fair to Jordan."
- Then, in a caucus (private meeting), the mediator can explore more gently: "You've proposed keeping the house and paying $X. Help me understand your thinking. How do you see yourself managing the payment alongside the mortgage?" This is still reality testing, but in a context where Alex feels heard and curious rather than attacked.
- The mediator learns that reality testing is a powerful tool, but it can feel like criticism if not grounded in validation first.
Supervisor Questions:
- Why did you reality test in that moment? What were you noticing?
- How did Alex respond to being questioned? Did they feel supported or criticized?
- What if you had first validated the proposal before reality testing?
- How might a caucus have changed the conversation?
Scenario 3: Child-Focused Interventions and Power
Setting: Family mediation with parents, including discussion about the child's involvement in mediation.
The situation: Both parents want to include their teenage child in the mediation to hear from the child about living arrangements. The mediator, having trained in child-inclusive mediation, says, "I think the child should be in the mediation. It's best practice to hear from the child." Neither parent has explicitly asked for the child to be involved, but they defer to the mediator's expertise. The mediator brings the teenager in, and during the session, the child becomes overwhelmed and upset. The parents feel guilty and defensive. The session breaks down.
The mediator's thinking: "I was being child-focused and modern. I was following best practice."
Lens 2 Perspective:
Through Lens 2, the supervisor helps the mediator see that while child-inclusive mediation can be valuable, the decision belongs to the parents. The mediator used their power to implement a practice without truly exploring whether it served this family. And the result was that the child was harmed, not helped.
Application:
- The mediator should have explored with the parents first: "Some families find it helpful to hear directly from the child. Others prefer to protect the child from the conflict. What feels right for your family? What do you think your child would want?"
- The mediator should have explored with the child separately: "Your parents are wondering whether you'd like to share your thoughts about living arrangements. What would feel comfortable for you? You don't have to be involved if you don't want to."
- The mediator learns that being "child-focused" means centring the child's wellbeing and autonomy, not imposing a practice that feels right to the mediator.
- The mediator might offer alternatives: the parents could share what they think the child needs, the mediator could help the parents think through the child's perspective, the parents could have a separate conversation with the child outside mediation.
Supervisor Questions:
- Why did you decide to include the child in the mediation?
- Did the parents ask for the child to be involved, or did you suggest it?
- How did the child experience the session? What happened that led to the breakdown?
- If you could do it again, how would you have approached it?
- What is the difference between best practice and what serves this particular family?
Academic Insights and Frameworks
Fisher & Ury (Getting to Yes): This seminal work on negotiation outlines key techniques: separating people from problems, focusing on interests not positions, generating options, and using objective criteria. In supervision, Lens 2 helps mediators examine whether they are using these techniques intentionally and whether they are serving clients' real interests or the mediator's preference for efficiency or agreement.
Kolb & Putnam (The Social Construction of Conflict and Negotiation): These scholars emphasize that conflict is not objective; it is shaped by how people talk about it, the stories they tell, and the interventions that are made. A mediator's reframing doesn't just present the same situation in neutral language; it actively constructs a different reality. Understanding this helps supervisors and mediators think carefully about the power of language and intervention.
Responsiveness in Mediator Role: Contemporary mediation theory increasingly emphasizes that mediators must be responsive to the clients and the process, not driven by a predetermined model. Lens 2 invites this responsiveness: What do these clients need right now? How is the process unfolding? Where is the mediator flexing, and where are they rigid?
Supervision Implications
Intentionality: Lens 2 helps mediators move from reactive to intentional practice. Rather than intervening automatically ("That's what I always do"), the mediator pauses and considers: Why am I doing this? What am I hoping will happen? Is this serving the clients?
Expanding the toolkit: As mediators examine their interventions in supervision, they often discover that they rely on a limited set of techniques. Lens 2 invites expansion: What else could you do? When is reframing not the right move? When do clients need silence, not talking?
Noticing impact: Supervision with Lens 2 helps mediators develop curiosity about impact. A technique might feel right to the mediator but land poorly with clients. Learning to notice clients' responses and adjust accordingly is crucial.
Using power ethically: Mediators often see themselves as "neutral" or "outside" the conflict. But Lens 2 makes clear that mediators have significant power — the power to shape the process, to control who speaks and for how long, to validate or dismiss, to propose outcomes. Ethical practice means being aware of this power and using it in service of clients, not in service of the mediator's comfort or agenda.
Self-awareness and regulation: Supervision with Lens 2 often surfaces the mediator's own triggers and patterns. A mediator might notice that they shut down anger (because anger scares them), or that they favour the more reasonable-sounding client (whose approach matches their own values), or that they rush to solve problems (because uncertainty is uncomfortable). Awareness is the first step to change.
Reflective Questions for Supervisors and Mediators
- What interventions did you make in this session? For each one, what were you noticing, and what was your intention?
- Why did you choose that technique in that moment? What else might you have done?
- How did the clients respond to your intervention? Did it move things forward, or stall the process?
- Were you following the clients' pace and priorities, or pushing your own agenda or preferred process?
- Where did you use your power as mediator? Was it in service of fairness and safety, or in service of your comfort?
- Where did you speak, and where did you stay silent? What impact did that have?
- What were you thinking and feeling during the session? Where were you triggered or emotionally activated?
- If you could rewind and replay one moment, what would you do differently, and why?
- What patterns do you notice in your mediation practice? Where do you rely on the same techniques or approaches?
- How aligned were your interventions with mediation values (neutrality, self-determination, fairness)?
Think about a recent mediation session you've supervised or participated in. Which lens — client context or mediator interventions — do you naturally tend to focus on? What might you be overlooking?