Some mediations don’t fail because the money wasn’t there. They fail because one party was determined to get the best possible deal — and walked away with nothing. Psychologist Barry Schwartz drew a distinction between maximisers and satisficers.
A maximiser needs to know they achieved the best possible outcome. They compare, second-guess, and keep searching for something better.
A satisficer sets clear criteria and acts when those criteria are met.
Not because they settle for less. Because they know what enough looks like. That distinction matters in mediation. The litigation process can quietly turn clients into maximisers. Years of conflict, mounting costs, and the belief that only a maximum outcome will feel like a win can make settlement feel like compromise rather than success. But when parties step back and ask what resolution actually gives them, a different ledger often emerges.
Time
Litigation consumes months — often years — that no judgment can ever return. A settlement does not just resolve a dispute. It gives people their time back.
Mental space
Active litigation occupies attention. It follows people to work, into family life, and into the quiet parts of the day. When the dispute ends, that burden often ends with it.
Certainty and flexibility
A court can award damages. It cannot deliver certainty today. It cannot craft confidentiality, staged payments, apologies, or outcomes tailored to the parties. Mediation can. That is not a lesser outcome. It is a different kind of value. Lawyers spend a lot of time preparing clients to argue value. Sometimes the more important task is helping them define what enough looks like. The maximiser waits for perfection. The satisficer knows what good looks like — and takes it. The satisficer optimises for life. #Mediation #DisputeResolution #Litigation #Negotiation #PersonalInjury #LegalPractice #ConflictResolution
