I am very honored to have been asked to write about Steve Goldberg, whom I greatly admired and who had a major impact on my professional life and my commitment to the introduction of mediation.
Steve was one of the pioneers of mediation in the United States. I met him before the year 2000, a quarter of a century ago, at an international symposium on mediation in Porto, Portugal to which I had been invited. At the time, I was president of the Social Division of the Grenoble Court of Appeal, which judges individual labor disputes between employers and employees. I was asked to give a presentation on the mediation practice I had introduced. In France, I’m considered a pioneer in the institutionalization of mediation (with 1,000 mediations ordered and 80% success rate reaching agreement). My American role model was Steve Goldberg. His career was marked by significant contributions to the field of conflict resolution. And here he was in Porto! His enthusiasm and passion for mediation were infectious. A deep friendship was born between us from that day on. I had the privilege of being invited with my husband to his home in the French village of Vénasque, in Provence. It was a place of enriching reflection and exchange. I was able to talk to Steve’s friends and realized how close he was to the people of Vénasque and how much he was appreciated. He was a member of the “Friends of Vénasque” association. Everyone in the village knew him and appreciated his extreme kindness. Beyond our professional collaboration, I appreciated Steve as a man who listened to others, always smiling and curious about everything. His keen intelligence and ability to understand and ease human tensions were impressive.
Afterwards, I was able to welcome Steve to my home near Grenoble. He did me the honor of coming to one of my “mediation proposal hearings,” where the judge, after sorting out the files, proposes that the parties go into mediation. He encouraged me to pursue my mediation practice. But he understood that “in Grenoble, without Béatrice, there would be no mediation!” Here again, he was a visionary, because when I left my post for the Lyon Court of Appeal, mediation collapsed in Grenoble.
Steve helped me understand that mediation, as a means of conflict resolution, has its place alongside litigation. Mediation leads us to rethink the role of the judge. We had thought that the purpose of judging was to settle disputes and establish the law. With amicable dispute resolution, we realized that the supreme aim of the judicial institution is to contribute to social peace. How do we do this? By settling disputes in accordance with the rule of law, or by seeking to reconcile them in the best interests of the parties. In other words, the law and amicable settlement are merely means, tools, for restoring social peace. One is not superior to the other. The two tools available to judges are equivalent. Steve understood this. For him, the law establishes a power that can sometimes seem unfair. It does not necessarily produce consensus. He advocated conflict management based on greater interactivity, more communication and exchange, and horizontal negotiation between responsible adults. He was opposed to a purely vertical approach to conflict management. Resorting solely to the law and the balance of power is sometimes insufficient. And yet, this is the approach we have long adopted—between individuals, within companies, between administrations and citizens, and between states.
Over the course of his career, Steve wrote several books and articles on mediation. A visionary, he realized that commercial relations today are faced with such rapid and far-reaching economic and social changes that they are forcing society’s players to devise new conflict management procedures, based on the parties’ commitment to a rapid and less costly agreement. Steve rethought the history of conflict and how to resolve it.
My husband, Michel Brenneur, another admirer of Steve, translated into French a book that Steve wrote with his wife, Jeanne Brett, and William Ury: Gérer les conflits autrement (Managing Conflict Differently). This book teaches us that there are three ways to resolve a conflict: reconcile the underlying interests of the parties, determine who is right, and prove who has the most power.
Steve’s other publications include How Mediation Works: Theory, Research, and Practice, which he wrote with me and Jeanne. This book, which has become a reference for mediation practitioners and researchers, provides innovative perspectives on, and practical solutions to, the challenges of conflict resolution. Working with him on the book was an unforgettable experience, marked by true friendship and mutual respect.
Steve also made a film, “Prosando.” In it, he plays the mediator in a commercial case in which a computer manufacturer, Prosando, terminated the exclusive concession it had granted to a dealer in South America. But Prosando did not respect the contractual notice period for termination and had created another computer that competed with the one the dealer was supposed to sell. He was therefore at fault. On the other hand, the dealer had to develop a network in South American countries and had not paid for the 80 computers he bought. He too was at fault! The legal solution could have been found by sharing responsibility, which would have satisfied no one. The solution found by Steve was based on interests. The dealer had developed a major network in two South American countries. It was therefore in the interests of both parties to give him exclusive rights to sell the two types of computers in these two countries only. The manufacturer was free to entrust the marketing of computers in other countries to other dealers. It was a win-win situation. In this mediation, a long and costly trial was avoided. This film illustrates Steve's thinking: “Our basic principle is that, in general, it is cheaper and more rewarding to focus on interests than on rights, which, in turn, cost less, and are more rewarding than focusing on power.” Steve wanted to encourage parties to resolve their conflicts by reconciling their interests whenever possible, and, when this was not possible, to use low-cost methods to determine rights and power.
Steve's impact on mediation is not limited to his writings. His humanistic approach, generosity, and commitment to active listening have inspired generations of mediators. His legacy lives on through the many professionals he trained and the many people he approached.
Steve has left us. The world of mediation is in mourning, but his work continues to influence the practice of mediation today. He is still with us.
