Impartial

 I don’t like the word 'impartial.' It feels wrong to me


Impartial is a judge who doesn’t care about the outcome and listens to legal points with no involvement in the humanity of the case, only coldly applying rules to facts

• Impartial is an Ombudsman, a football ref, an umpire at Wimbledon

• Impartial is someone with no skin in the game

• Impartial *might be* the BBC (depending on who you ask)

• Impartial is a non-participating character, reporting and analysing strictly to reach a result

I don’t want to do that. Impartiality is cold, and it imposes a distance between mediator and client

I can’t do my best work at helping create a solution for you without a full understanding of your viewpoint; without walking a mile in your shoes

When you’re trusting me to know everything about your case, the least you can expect is that I support your case’s strengths, and work to get the best result for you and your client, in the space and time available

I want to support you on the points we agree are strong, and challenge you like a cautious old friend would on the points that warrant a second look

The complication? I want to do exactly the same for the other side

So, I’m not impartial in the classic sense. Instead, my approach is one of equally balanced partiality

It’s free from favouritism or any bias, and applied without taking sides. This approach lets me fully understand your case, still with a critical eye, and work with you to get the result you need without putting unhelpful and dehumanising distance between us

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Setting a higher bar

Flexibility