I recently came across a strategy from Chris Voss that’s changed how I approach conflict resolution. It’s a simple but revealing question:

“Why would you ever pick us?”

Voss used it in hostage situations as a kind of “proof of life”—a way to determine if the person they were trying to help was even still alive. In the world of conflict resolution, the principle is the same. Are the people in the room actually working toward a resolution, or are they just going through the motions?

At first, the question seems too blunt. But when asked sincerely and with curiosity, it brings clarity where things have felt foggy. I’ve started adapting it for use in mediations—more like:

“What would make resolution worth it for you?”

“Why would moving forward with an agreement be better than staying where things are?”

These aren’t tricks. They’re real questions that help people reflect on whether resolution is even on the table. And the responses tell you a lot. When someone can explain their reasoning clearly, it usually means they’re open to progress. When they can’t—or shift the focus back to the other party—you may be dealing with someone who’s not ready to engage in a meaningful way.

This approach may be challenging in court-ordered mediation, where parties often attend because they’re required to, rather than having actively chosen this path. They may not have factored alternative dispute resolution into their endgame at all. In these cases, it’s important to tread carefully. Rather than asking outright why resolution in mediation is appealing, I might ask what a good outcome would look like for them, or what would have to happen for them to feel like they can move on. The goal is the same: to help them connect the dots between their current position and a possible future they can live with. It’s a slower build, but it still works.

This approach helps cut through false momentum. Sometimes people agree to participate because they feel they should, or because they don’t want to seem difficult. But resolution doesn’t come from obligation—it comes from vision. From someone deciding that a different future is possible and worth pursuing.

When you ask these kinds of questions, you’re not forcing a decision. You’re creating space for people to clarify what they actually want. That shift—from persuasion to reflection—can make all the difference.

And yes, the silence that follows your question can be uncomfortable. But it’s also where some of the most honest moments happen. People might not have given their answers much thought. Now they have to. And that alone can move things forward.

Since using this approach, I’ve noticed fewer circular conversations and more moments of clarity. Not always agreement, but clarity about what’s possible.

Conflict resolution isn’t about nudging people toward a middle ground. It’s about asking the kinds of questions that help them see whether they’re ready—and willing—to take the next step.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they aren’t. Either way, knowing that sooner helps everyone involved.