The power of the handshake; the impact of the “non-shake”

Frank walked into the mediation room and extended his hand. His counterparty, Simon, sat with his arms crossed, not meeting his eye. Mistaking this behaviour for not being seen, Frank extended his hand closer.

“I am not shaking his hand,” said Simon.

The story of Frank and Simon is played out across mediations and, in my experience thus far, the impact is to put the mediation immediately on the back foot. Since this incident, I have been trying to assess what was going on and what I might do to mitigate the impact in future mediations.

My first instinct was to remove the handshake risk altogether. In future, I would arrange plenary sessions so that one party was already seated behind a table and I would direct the other to their seats, more than an arm's length away. I would establish civility through round-table introductions and ground rules, but do no more than that.

But isn't there power in the handshake? Doesn't it indicate a desire to find solutions?

Research certainly points that way. One paper examining the cooperative nature of negotiations focused specifically on handshakes in both contentious and non-contentious settings. Even when parties were at odds with each other, the researchers found that following a handshake they were less likely to lie about information that benefited themselves, increasing cooperation, even where doing so was against their immediate self-interest.[1]

Equally, studies and observations of behaviour in mediation suggest that the perception of disrespect from the other party can present a significant barrier to cooperation and agreement.[2] This includes the failure to shake hands.

So, with all the negative associations of a failure to shake hands, what is happening in the mind of the 'non-shaker'?

It may simply be an expression of anger towards the counterparty. A party may feel fearful, insulted, mistrustful or misunderstood. In those circumstances, it feels natural not to shake hands even if it means, as a consequence, that the other the other party is not encouraged to listen or cooperate.

Importantly, there may be something else going on. Power imbalances, cultural differences or neurodiversity may make a handshake uncomfortable or inappropriate for one of the parties.

But there is an important distinction between the intention behind refusing a handshake and how that refusal is perceived. What one party regards as maintaining a personal boundary may be experienced by the other as a deliberate insult (and often is from what I have seen).

So what to do?

I have now built the handshake discussion into my preliminary meetings. As well as checking on time constraints, health needs and cigarette or other breaks, I ask specifically about the handshake.

If a party does not wish to shake hands, I try to understand why and ask whether that can be communicated to the other side. Where appropriate, I will also explore the potential benefits of a handshake as a positive start to the mediation day, whilst recognising that the decision must remain entirely theirs.

Things did not improve for Frank and Simon[3], the atmosphere in the room was negative from the off and the mediation was unsuccessful.

I remain convinced that the handshake can be a powerful gesture, an indication of a desire to resolve the dispute at hand and that an objection to shaking hands needs to be understood and managed by the mediator.

I hope my reflections on that failure will hold me in good stead in future.

[1] Handshaking Promotes Deal-Making by Signaling Cooperative Intent, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[2] Lessons from Mediation: An Examination of Disputant Behaviors During Mediation and Their Possible Application to Seemingly Intractable Disputes, Conflict Research Consortium.

[3] Not their real names!