A Personal Awakening in Mediation
On a quiet summer night in 2023, my phone rang, shattering the silence. On the other end, my mother’s voice trembled with despair: “I don’t think I can live anymore.” My heart pounded—I knew what this meant. My father was at it again. Within hours, I was on a 17-hour flight to China, hurtling toward the chaos of my parents’ crumbling marriage.
Their divorce process was mediated by a business executive with no formal conflict resolution training. The challenge? My father exhibited classic signs of narcissistic personality disorder—manipulative, controlling, and determined to use the mediation process as a weapon. “No way she gets what she wants. She needs to learn, to be punished, and suffer the consequences,” he repeated to the mediator, deliberately delaying negotiations. Watching the process unfold while in my home country, I found myself questioning the very principle I had been taught in my mediation training: neutrality.
The Limitations of Neutrality
Neutrality is the gold standard in mediation—a commitment to fairness that ensures neither party is favored. But in cases involving high-conflict personalities, particularly narcissists, strict neutrality can inadvertently empower the aggressor and harm the vulnerable party.
In my parents’ divorce negotiations, I observed how my father dominated the process, alternating between threats, charm, and victimhood. He flooded the mediator with coercive messages while my mother sat in silent distress. The mediator struggled to manage the pace of the process, acknowledging privately how difficult neutrality felt in the face of such manipulation. This experience reinforced a hard truth: when neutrality fails to address power imbalances, it ceases to be neutral—it becomes complicit.
Understanding the Narcissistic Mindset
Narcissists thrive on control. They see the world in rigid binaries—winners and losers, dominance and submission. Research shows they often hijack rational discussions, making meaningful negotiation nearly impossible. My father, a respected pediatrician in public but a domineering figure at home, exemplified this contradiction. His need for external validation and authority led him to manipulate both my mother and the mediator to direct the process to favor his terms.
Behavioral economist Dan Ariely’s work on irrational decision-making brings light to this dynamic. He states how heightened emotions can overpower rational thought, causing individuals—particularly those with narcissistic tendencies—to behave unpredictably and, at times, destructively. In mediation, this means that traditional techniques based on good faith negotiations can fall apart when one party operates from a place of entitlement and control.
A Call for Adaptive Mediation
Mediation should not just be about neutrality—it’s about fairness. But fairness is not an abstract principle; it is deeply tied to the emotions that shape decision-making. When dealing with narcissistic personalities, mediators must recognize that logic and reason alone will not drive resolution—emotion plays a critical role. Fear, entitlement, and a need for attention and dominance often fuel a narcissist’s behavior, which makes traditional neutrality insufficient.
When I later asked the mediator what eventually drove my father to agree to the settlement, the mediator stated, “I guess that day he was in a good mood, so he suddenly signed.” These seemingly simple words further reinforce that effective and advanced mediators understand and recognize that moods, personal triggers, and psychological needs can be just as influential as the facts of the case. By identifying these emotional cues and adapting approaches accordingly, mediators can guide parties toward resolution in ways that pure logic cannot achieve.
So, how should mediators navigate working with parties involving narcissists? Here are a few key takeaways from my personal experience:
Set Firm Boundaries (and Stick to Them): Narcissists push limits—it’s what they do. If mediators don’t set firm boundaries from the start, they’ll take every opportunity to twist the process in their favor. I’ve seen how my father used delay tactics, gaslighting, and emotional outbursts to derail negotiations. Boundaries aren’t just guidelines; they’re the foundation that keeps mediation from turning into a battleground.
Reframe Neutrality as Fairness: For a long time, I believed neutrality meant treating both parties exactly the same. But when power imbalances exist—in cases involving narcissists like my father—this approach only enables destructive behavior. I’ve come to realize that fairness doesn’t mean giving both sides equal ground; it means making sure one party isn’t weaponizing the process for self-benefit. True neutrality isn’t about passively waiting and watching things unfold—it’s about stepping in when needed to ensure the process remains fair and effective.
Use Strategic Empathy: At first, I resisted the idea of giving a narcissist any kind of emotional validation when mediating my own cases. Why should I acknowledge their need for control? The question bothers me. But I’ve since learned that ignoring their emotional drivers only makes them dig in deeper. Instead, strategic empathy—recognizing their need for attention and validation while subtly redirecting it—can be a game-changer. Framing resolutions in a way that appeals to their ego (such as emphasizing how an agreement will reflect positively on them and their social image) often moves things forward more effectively than logic alone.
Leverage Third-Party Safeguards: One of the toughest lessons I’ve learned is that sometimes, mediation itself isn’t enough. Narcissists thrive in isolation, where they can manipulate without oversight. That’s why I now bring in legal experts, therapists, or additional mediators when necessary. Extra safeguards can help neutralize emotional exploitation and keep the process focused on real solutions, not just power struggles.
Final Thoughts
As mediators, we are lectured and required to remain impartial and avoid favoring any party. However, situations involving great power imbalances, volatile emotions, or individuals like my father who have NPD reveal that neutrality can become an obstacle to effective mediation. I believe that neutrality cannot always apply uniformly to every situation. When one party feels disregarded or disrespected during the mediation process, the mediator will need to abandon strict neutrality to work around emotions and take personal, tailored approaches.
True neutrality does not mean passivity; it means actively ensuring that the process leads to genuine resolution, not further harm. Adaptive mediation requires understanding that emotions—not just arguments—drive decisions. By addressing these emotional undercurrents, we, as mediators, can prevent the process from becoming another tool of abuse and instead steer it toward fair and sustainable outcomes.