Samantha Hardy and Peter Hanson
Every mediator, at some point, has sighed over coffee or in supervision and said: “The cases are getting harder these days.” But is that true? Are disputes genuinely more complex and intractable, or are we simply remembering the past through rose-tinted glasses?
This question keeps coming up in training rooms, research articles, and professional networks. Some point to undeniable social changes in how we live and communicate. Others suggest that mediators themselves have changed, with expectations rising and energy thinning over the years.
As with most things in our field, the answer is not either/or.
The Case for “Conflicts Are Getting Harder”
The erosion of everyday communication skills
Many people now come to mediation with weaker face-to-face communication skills than earlier generations. Texting, email, and social media dominate daily exchanges. This leaves fewer opportunities to practice sustained, difficult conversations. Reliance on digital platforms may reduce people’s ability to read emotions, pick up nonverbal cues, and stay present in uncomfortable dialogue.
Robert Bordone and Joel Salinas note in Conflict Resilience that we have lost much of our ability to “sit in the discomfort” of disagreement. Without this skill, people arrive in mediation depleted and unprepared for dialogue. Mediators often find themselves coaching the basics of communication before the substantive issues can even be tackled.
Shifting social norms and entertainment culture
Conflict today plays out against a backdrop of media and entertainment that frames disputes as loud, adversarial, and often zero-sum. Reality television, social media call-outs, and influencer drama shape how people think conflict should look.
As a colleague once joked, maybe people watch too much Married at First Sight. Beneath the humour lies a challenge: when conflict is expected to be dramatic and decisive, the slow, quiet, and incremental work of mediation can feel disappointing.
Generational expectations and fragility
Generational differences add further complexity. Baby Boomers, Generation X, Millennials, and Gen Z bring different communication styles, values, and expectations of respect into the room.
Younger parties may seek recognition, safety, or symbolic justice, while older parties may place higher value on compromise or stability. These differences are not about one group being stronger or weaker. They reflect different cultural scripts and life experiences. The result is a negotiation not only about issues, but also about what counts as fairness or resolution.
Research suggests that Gen Z, for example, is more comfortable articulating needs but also reports higher rates of anxiety and conflict avoidance. Mediation becomes the arena where these differences collide, often making cases feel more emotionally charged.
For more on generational differences in conflict, see our Webinar on Demand: https://conflictmanagement.tangiblelaunchpad.com/webinar-on-demand-intergenerational-conflict/
The Case for “Mediators Are Getting Jaded”
Nostalgia filters memory
Memory is selective. Breakthrough cases and creative settlements tend to linger, while the messy and inconclusive mediations fade away. This creates a highlight reel of the past, which makes today’s disputes feel harder in comparison.
It is much like how political leaders of previous generations, once criticised in their own time, are later remembered more fondly than current ones. Mediators are not immune to this kind of nostalgia.
Changing expectations with experience
As mediators gain experience, their benchmarks for success change. A novice may celebrate any agreement as a win. More seasoned practitioners tend to expect outcomes that are fairer, more durable, and more dignified. That shift makes current cases feel heavier, not because they are objectively harder, but because the mediator is now looking through a different lens.
The professionalisation of mediation adds another layer. As standards and accreditation requirements evolve, mediators face higher benchmarks. What once counted as a success may no longer feel sufficient.
Professional fatigue and cynicism
Mediation is emotionally demanding. Listening to anger, grief, or hostility over long periods can take a toll. Without strong habits of self-care, peer support, and reflective practice, fatigue can turn into cynicism. Mediators begin to see new cases as worse than before when, in reality, the disputes may not be so different. What has changed is the mediator’s own capacity to carry the work.
Is It Both?
The honest answer is that both forces are at play. Society is changing. Communication is faster but shallower, cultural scripts are more contested, and generational expectations are shifting. At the same time, mediators themselves evolve. Our expectations rise, our memories filter out the messy parts of the past, and our reserves of energy fluctuate with time. The perception of “harder” disputes is shaped by this interaction between changing parties and changing practitioners.
A Conflict Resilience Lens
One way to bring these perspectives together is through the concept of conflict resilience. This is about the capacity to adapt, collaborate, and persist productively in the face of difference.
When parties arrive with less resilience, cases feel more intractable. When mediators are burned out or nostalgic, their ability to model and support resilience is weakened. But resilience can be taught and cultivated, both for parties and for practitioners.
For parties, resilience grows through skills such as listening, patience, and emotional regulation. For mediators, it requires ongoing reflection, supervision, and conscious attention to well-being.
Implications for Practice
Recalibrate training and support
Training must move beyond process mechanics to include emotional intelligence, digital literacy, trauma-informed practice, and resilience-building strategies. Mentoring, co-mediation, and reflective supervision should be seen as core, not optional extras.
Revisit ethical anchors
The foundational principles of impartiality, confidentiality, and self-determination remain vital. Yet they need to be re-examined in light of online practice, cultural diversity, systemic inequities, and contested ideas about neutrality. Part of ethical maturity is recognising when fatigue, nostalgia, or bias is colouring how we see our work.
Acknowledge the societal context
Mediation takes place within broader social and cultural currents. Generational divides, media scripts, systemic inequities, and economic stress all show up in the room. Naming and working with these dynamics makes us better able to respond with compassion and clarity.
Invest in mediator resilience
Resilience is not optional. Reflective journaling, mindfulness, gratitude practices, and peer support are all protective. Institutions must also play their part by managing caseloads, offering structured supervision, and fostering supportive cultures.
Conclusion: Beyond “Harder” or “Easier”
It is tempting to declare that conflicts are getting harder. It gives a neat explanation for the fatigue many of us feel. But conflict has always been hard. What changes is the context: the scripts people bring, the tools they have, the expectations they carry, and the way we as mediators interpret them.
The better questions are these:
-
What skills or gaps are parties bringing into the room?
-
What assumptions are mediators carrying from past experiences?
-
How do these interact to shape the experience of today’s mediation?
Conflict has always been both ancient and new. Families argue, colleagues fall out, neighbours clash. Our task is not to decide whether the present is worse than the past. It is to remain adaptive, curious, and resilient. These are the qualities that sustain good practice in any era.