I have been back on the mediation trail, this time leading a successful two-hour negotiation between two people who had fallen out over a private business deal.

Flushed from that triumph I headed for the ADR Group conference in Oxford where many leading UK mediators gathered to mull over trends in the sector.

One issue of course is Regulation and the heavy clammy hand of government. It falls on the mediation world because some public money is available for parties in dispute and so the government wants ‘quality control’, which means all sorts of mechanisms such as the Civil Mediation Council – and extra costs/hassle for everyone.

There was one poignant exchange between the conference participants. One said that the best way to keep up standards was to be found in delivering high private professional reputations. Someone else retorted that that was "some sort of nineteenth century laissez-faire anachronism – the way forward lies in Regulation".

This is a Back to the Future issue. Remember the Guilds – and their downfall?

What we are seeing now is a doomed pseudo-professionalisation and formalisation of all human activity driven by government ‘control’ instincts which in effect create new collectivist guilds – those unfairly blessed and privileged by the state, lording it over private associations which are not. This phase will end, but only after appalling damage has been done.

One other effect of professionalising this area is that it is tending to become inflexible: there are all sorts of rival theories and techniques being taught and argued about, as if they were mutually exclusive.

One result of this is that mediations tend to be rather formulaic.

In the US/UK model a day is set. The parties gather. A ‘joint session’ is held at which they lay out their core concerns (preferably in a civilised way). Then the parties separate, and the mediator engages in deft shuttle diplomacy between them to help identify areas of common ground and so construct a possible deal.

This formula works pretty well in many cases. But it has disadvantages. There is no real negotiation over the process itself, which perhaps the parties would appreciate and value. It also has at its core a hard-nosed pragmatism – cut a deal – rather than prioritising any attempt to achieve reconciliation.

That said, such ‘disadvantages’ may well be valued by many disputing parties who after months or years of expensive and draining warfare simply want to get it Sorted.

Their lawyers too may be hoping the mediator will be tough and help get some unpleasant messages across to clients which they are loath to convey themselves. See this lively article on Heavy Metal Mediation.

My problem with the very word ‘mediation’ is that (to me) it sounds soppy and tree-huggingish and somehow limp. I much prefer the idea of problem-solving or dispute management. Which after all is what it is.

We all know that it is far better to face up to issues than pretend that they’ll go away – to nip problems in the bud before they escalate and create unmanageable bad feeling and waste time and money.

And if you smart readers have issues within your organisation or between your organisation and another which are just getting stuck and bad-tempered, you know what to do.