Whether you’re a mediator, diplomat, business negotiator, or family therapist, we need to talk about something uncomfortable: the God complex that some of us develop. Somewhere along the way, we forget that we’re simply there to walk alongside people, not to decide for them, tell them what they should do, or even make recommendations. Our role is to help parties achieve self-determination in an informed manner—nothing more, nothing less.
And yes, before you ask—I’m talking to myself here too. We’re all recovering know-it-alls in these professions.
When Real-World Negotiations Go Wrong (And They Do, Constantly)
Look around at current events and you’ll see this God complex playing out everywhere. When President Trump met with Vladimir Putin without Ukraine’s President Zelensky present, we witnessed classic shuttle diplomacy on a global stage—but how can you negotiate anything meaningful about Ukraine’s future without Ukraine in the room? It’s just not a thing.
This exclusionary pattern? It shows up constantly. Corporate layoff negotiations where affected employees are excluded while HR “speaks for them.” School board meetings about curriculum changes where student voices aren’t heard. Healthcare treatment decisions made by insurance companies without meaningful patient input. Family business succession planning where the next generation is told what’s best for them rather than being part of the conversation.
The facilitators think they’re being efficient, streamlined, productive. But actually they’re creating agreements that aren’t durable because the people who have to live with the outcomes didn’t have real input. These kinds of negotiations might produce quick headlines or impressive “win” statistics, but they typically result in agreements that either fall apart quickly or require constant renegotiation. In other words, we’re essentially kicking the can down the road rather than creating durable solutions and then wonder what went wrong.
Success Rates: Whose Victory Are We Really Celebrating?
But even beyond these extreme examples, there’s a subtler problem with how we measure success. I hear negotiators and mediators (and yes, I’ve caught myself doing this too) bragging about their success rates at networking events all the time. “I have a 95% settlement rate!” they announce, practically puffing up their chest feathers like a peacock in business attire. But here is the uncomfortable truth: it’s not about us.
It’s about the parties and their experience. The settlement rate isn’t nearly as important as how the parties feel about the process and the decisions they made. Studies show parties with higher levels of self-determination in both the process and outcome are more satisfied and more likely to comply with agreements long-term (Hanson & Creswell, 2022).
You might be able to achieve an agreement through coercion—but is that really success? Or is it just manipulation with a fancy professional label?
Exhaustion Warfare (Yes, That’s Really What We’re Doing)
This problem isn’t limited to high-profile negotiations. I frequently hear corporate negotiators, diplomatic teams, and even family therapists boast about marathon sessions where they keep parties engaged for 8-10 hours with limited food or breaks, wearing them down until they capitulate. They frame this as dedication or persistence, like they’re some sort of endurance athlete of conflict resolution.
I call this what it is: exhaustion warfare.
This is fatigue-based coercion. Plain and simple. When we deliberately deprive people of basic needs to break down their resistance, we’re not negotiating—we’re bullying. We’re using whatever process we’re facilitating as a venue for manipulating parties into agreements they might not have made with a clear head and a full stomach.
That’s not professional facilitation. That’s manipulation with professional credentials, and frankly? It’s unethical. Research on coercion shows that when disputants experience substantial pressure, it undermines the very foundation of effective dispute resolution (Welsh, 2005).
The consequences are predictable: agreements that collapse under scrutiny, parties who feel deceived, and a damaged reputation for collaborative problem-solving. But hey, at least we got that settlement rate, right?
Expert Opinions: Stay in Your Lane (Please)
Here’s another way the God complex shows up across all types of negotiations: experts who can’t seem to take off their professional hats. Whether you’re an attorney giving legal advice in mediation, a financial advisor imposing investment strategies in family business disputes, or a diplomatic veteran lecturing about historical precedent in peace talks, expert opinions based on your many years of professional practice can be out of bounds when you’re supposed to be facilitating.
This isn’t a courtroom, boardroom, or academic conference. This is a negotiation designed to help parties find self-determination in the grey zones where expertise and lived experience intersect messily. When you’re facilitating, you’re not there to educate parties about your field of expertise or share your professional wisdom. You’re there to facilitate their decision-making process.
And this isn’t just a problem for credentialed professionals. After thousands of cases, I often think I’ve solidly got it down, too. But that’s exactly the trap! THAT’S IS NOT THE POINT! We must give our clients the opportunity to come to their own conclusions without using the power that comes with our titles; whether that’s “Attorney,” “Judge,” “Dr.,” “CEO,” or even “Mediator with 14,000+ cases.” Trust me, the urge to drop some wisdom bombs is real. But resist! Your expert lecture is often out of bounds and competes with the authenticity of the process.
What Good Self-Determination Actually Looks Like
Let me share what happens when we get this right. I once facilitated a family business dispute where three siblings couldn’t agree on succession planning. Instead of pushing them toward my “obvious” solution, I spent time helping each person articulate their real concerns and dreams for the business. We focused on interests, what they really needed, not their demands. This is mediation 101, really.
Once we made this shift, it became evident the eldest wanted security. The middle child craved innovation while the youngest needed autonomy. Rather than imposing a traditional hierarchy, they developed a rotating leadership model with defined roles that honored each of their strengths and concerns. It wasn’t the solution I envisioned but rather a better, more complex solution that I wouldn’t have even been able to foresee. Two years later, their business is thriving, and more importantly, they’re still talking to each other. This is what genuine self-determination produces; solutions that may not look neat and tidy to outsiders, but that work for the people who have to live with them.
Conflict Curiosity Over Control
Real facilitation requires us to check our egos at the door and embrace what I call “conflict curiosity.” Instead of pushing our agenda or timeline, we need to:
- Listen deeply to understand, not to formulate our next brilliant intervention.
- Ask better questions that guide parties to their own insights.
- Create space for people to discover their own solutions.
- Trust the process instead of trying to control the outcome.
When parties feel heard and understood, when they have time to process and think clearly, they make decisions that feel right to them. These are the agreements that stick—not the ones forced through sleep deprivation and hunger.
We’re Killing Our Own Fields
This behavior hurts all forms of collaborative problem-solving! People won’t want to revisit mediation, negotiation, or conflict resolution when they’ve been tortured and bullied into decisions. Think about it, would you voluntarily return to a process where you were exhausted, manipulated, and coerced? Would you recommend that experience to others? I’m guessing the answer is a hard no unless you’re into that sort of thing, in which case we need to have a different conversation entirely.Sadly, the damage goes beyond individual cases. When agreements lack genuine buy-in, they frequently collapse within months, leading to renewed conflict, damaged relationships, and expensive re-negotiations. Worse, parties tell others about their negative experience, creating a ripple effect that damages the reputation of collaborative processes. Whether it’s international diplomacy, corporate negotiations, family mediation, or community conflict resolution—people don’t want to be treated this way. When we use these tactics, we’re not just failing individual parties, we’re damaging the reputation of collaborative problem-solving itself. So, stop it PLEASE! Use your actual skills instead of relying on power plays and endurance contests.
A Better Way Forward
Quit the coercion and use better skills. Real facilitation mastery isn’t about wearing people down. It’s about creating genuinely safe spaces for difficult conversations. It’s about asking questions that help parties see new perspectives, managing time and energy so people can think clearly, measuring success by party satisfaction, not just settlement rates and having the courage to end a session if parties need rest or reflection.
The Path Forward
It takes real skill and confidence to step back and let parties find their own way. It requires humility to admit that our job isn’t to be the hero of every story, but rather the guide who helps others become the heroes of their own narratives. I know, I know—being the wise sage dispensing brilliant insights feels way more satisfying than being the person who just…listens and asks good questions. But that’s the job, folks.So, next time you feel tempted to push harder, to extend that session just a little longer, or to celebrate your settlement rate at a networking event, ask yourself: Who is this really serving? At the end of the day, if parties don’t feel empowered by their choices, if they leave feeling manipulated rather than heard, then no matter what papers get signed, we haven’t done our job.
The Choice Is Ours
The world needs more genuine facilitators who trust in people’s ability to solve their own problems when given the right support and conditions. We can either continue down the path of expert-driven, coercive practices that produce hollow victories, or we can recommit to the harder but more rewarding work of supporting genuine self-determination.
The choice—like all the best choices—belongs to us. Let’s choose wisely.
The world needs more genuine peacemakers, not more sophisticated bullies. Let’s make sure we know which one we’re being.
The author is a mediator with over 14,000 cases of experience in conflict resolution and believes in party self-determination above facilitator ego.
References
Hanson, K., & Creswell, A. (2022). The benefits of promoting party self-determination in mediation. Colorado Lawyer, 51(9), 44-51.
Welsh, N. A. (2005). Coercion and self-determination in court-connected mediation: All mediations are voluntary, but some are more voluntary than others. Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law, 26, 123-165.