It’s been some time since my last post, and I hope readers will forgive the hiatus I took. For better or worse, I’m back! 🙂
Years ago, through my training in Neuro-Linguistic Programming, I learned about the word of systemic family therapist Virginia Satir. Satir was one of the original persons which NLP modelled and the Meta-Model was derived from her work. She was well known, not only for the depth of her psychological understanding but for her compassionately practical models of human communication.
One of her most enduring and valuable contributions is the set of communication styles she identified that often manifests in the face of stress and conflict. These are referred to as the Satir Categories and comprise of five communication styles. These are:
The Blamer: The blamer dominates. They criticize and accuse. This stance often masks fear or insecurity but comes across as forceful and controlling.
The Placater: The placater attempts to soothe and please everyone. They will apologize, agree, and acquiesce, even at the cost of their own needs. Underneath is often a fear of rejection or disapproval.
The Computer: The computer is calm, collected, and hyper-rational. They offer facts and logic, devoid of emotion. While appearing in control, they often disconnect from their feelings.
The Distractor: The distracter changes the subject, makes jokes, or introduces irrelevancies. This can be a way of avoiding discomfort or asserting freedom in the face of stress.
The Leveler: The leveler is authentic and congruent. Their words, emotions, and body language are aligned. This stance is grounded, open, and respectful of both self and others.
To be clear, these are not fixed personality types, but reflexive stances people adopt under pressure. We can see these roles emerge in almost every conflictual interaction, often shifting from moment to moment. But more importantly, these stances are relational—they do not exist in isolation. And this is where the real value lies for mediators.
When we mediate, we are not simply resolving issues; we are creating a space in which people navigate stress, power, fear, and sometimes shame.
When a party enters the room as a blamer—pointing fingers, assigning fault—the natural tendency may be to see them as difficult or aggressive. But what if we saw them through Satir’s lens? What if the blaming was a coping strategy rooted in fear or a desperate attempt to be heard?
Similarly, the placater may seem cooperative, even helpful. But beneath the surface, they may be erasing their own interests, leading to agreements that unravel or resentment that festers.
The Satir Categories give us a frame of compassion within which we can see behaviour not simply as something to manage, but as something to understand. We stop asking, “How do I fix this person?” and begin asking, “What are they protecting? What need is not being met?”
This perspective also allows us, as mediators, to become aware of our own reflexive tendencies. Do we placate in the face of aggression? Do we default to the computer when things get messy? The categories are not just tools for diagnosing others—they are mirrors that invite self-reflection.
An elegant piece of Satir’s insight is that communication is not just about what each person is doing, but how those behaviours interact. A party adopting one category may trigger another party into a complementary or opposing stance.
This is particularly relevant in mediation, where parties are often under emotional duress, navigating high-stakes issues. The reflexive stance of one person can evoke a reactive stance in another. These patterns, once set in motion, can either entrench conflict or open a door to resolution—depending on the mediator’s intervention.
To understand these interactions, consider the following table:
Blamer – Blamer: Power struggle with escalating attacks. Neither party yields, resulting in emotional standoffs and communication breakdown.
Blamer – Placater: Dominance-submission pattern. Blamer intensifies control; placater self-silences. May lead to placater burnout or covert resistance.
Blamer – Computer: Emotion vs. logic conflict. Blamer grows agitated by the computer’s detachment, often ending in stonewalling or emotional outbursts.
Blamer – Distracter: Mismatch in focus. Blamer seeks control; distracter avoids, causing mutual frustration or emotional shutdown.
Blamer – Leveler: If the leveler maintains calm and clarity, the blamer may shift from aggression to respectful engagement.
Placater – Placater: Excessive harmony. Both avoid conflict, leading to suppressed needs and fragile agreements that lack staying power.
Placater – Computer: Emotional disconnect. Placater seeks connection; computer offers logic. Placater feels unseen; computer feels burdened.
Placater – Distracter: Meandering, scattered dialogue. Neither anchors the conversation, fostering confusion and emotional bypassing.
Placater – Leveler: Leveler’s authenticity creates a safe space. Placater may begin asserting personal needs and expressing true feelings.
Computer – Computer: Efficient but sterile. Practical matters resolved logically, but emotional wounds risk being ignored.
Computer – Distracter: Breakdown in focus. Structured computer clashes with erratic distracter, leading to disconnection or mutual irritation.
Computer – Leveler: Harmonious blend. Computer offers structure; leveler contributes emotional insight. Can result in balanced, thoughtful communication.
Distracter – Distracter: Chaotic and energetic. Lacks direction or depth. Substantive issues are evaded; resolution is elusive.
Distracter – Leveler: Leveler grounds the distracter. If trust builds, distracter may drop deflection and speak more authentically.
Leveler – Leveler: Optimal dynamic. Both parties are authentic and grounded. Promotes deep, respectful, and creative conflict resolution.
How might a mediator interact in each of these dynamics?
Blamer – Blamer
Effect: Rapid escalation, blame cycles, positional entrenchment.
Mediator Strategy: De-escalate early. Use reframing to redirect to needs. Create separate space for storytelling. Normalize emotion.
Blamer – Placater
Effect: Power imbalance, emotional shutdown or resentment in placater.
Mediator Strategy: Empower placater by validating their perspective. Reflect blamer’s concerns in non-blaming language. Rebalance power.
Blamer – Computer
Effect: Disconnection. Blamer sees computer as aloof; computer sees blamer as irrational.
Mediator Strategy: Bridge emotional and rational frames. Invite each to reflect how they’re experiencing the other.
Blamer – Distracter
Effect: Misfire. Blamer seeks control; distracter sidesteps. Leads to frustration or ridicule.
Mediator Strategy: Name the dynamic. Ground the discussion. Redirect blame into constructive expression.
Blamer – Leveler
Effect: Tension can transform if the leveler stays grounded. Blamer may soften.
Mediator Strategy: Hold steady with the leveler. Help the blamer feel heard without conceding to attack.
Placater – Placater
Effect: Superficial harmony, unspoken needs, fragile agreements.
Mediator Strategy: Gently challenge both parties to express individual needs. Use curiosity to go deeper beneath the surface.
Placater – Computer
Effect: Misattunement—placater seeks approval; computer offers cold logic.
Mediator Strategy: Translate logic into emotional relevance. Invite placater to articulate their unmet needs clearly.
Placater – Distracter
Effect: Fragmented discussion, low focus, unresolved issues.
Mediator Strategy: Use structure to ground the dialogue. Keep redirecting toward core interests. Use light touch to engage both.
Placater – Leveler
Effect: Opportunity for healing. Placater may gain self-awareness and voice.
Mediator Strategy: Encourage leveler to model congruence. Affirm placater’s worth and invite authentic contribution.
Computer – Computer
Effect: Efficient but emotionally flat. May overlook underlying relational issues.
Mediator Strategy: Ask what matters beyond the facts. Introduce questions about values and emotions.
Computer – Distracter
Effect: Cognitive dissonance. Computer seeks order; distracter creates noise.
Mediator Strategy: Use structure to refocus. Invite distracter to name what they’re avoiding. Reaffirm purpose.
Computer – Leveler
Effect: Balanced potential. Logic meets authenticity; can lead to integrated resolution.
Mediator Strategy: Use leveler’s presence to draw emotional content from the computer. Keep both engaged.
Distracter – Distracter
Effect: Chaotic energy, fragmented conversation, little progress.
Mediator Strategy: Firmly refocus using agenda or process tools. Use humour carefully to transition to substance.
Distracter – Leveler
Effect: Distracter may feel safe to drop façade. Leveler anchors.
Mediator Strategy: Support leveler in modelling congruence. Engage distracter with playfulness, then pivot to substance.
Leveler – Leveler
Effect: Deep congruence, honest dialogue, high resolution potential.
Mediator Strategy: Maintain structure. Intervene minimally. Affirm progress and deepen where helpful.
So far, we have explored the dynamics that can occur when parties engage in the various Satir categories and what a mediator might do in response. But could the mediator could use them proactively?
Virginia Satir believed that any of the first four roles could be consciously adopted to produce specific effects. The same is true for mediators. By temporarily embodying one of the categories, a mediator can shift the emotional climate of the mediation room.
Using the Blamer: This must be done sparingly and with skill. At times, the mediator may need to play devil’s advocate or firmly challenge an inconsistency. A brief “blamer stance” can jolt a party into awareness, especially if they are overly passive or deflecting.
Using the Placater: When a party is feeling unsafe or unacknowledged, the mediator might temporarily adopt a gentle, placating tone to soothe and calm the room. This isn’t submission, but emotional alignment—a way of softening defensiveness.
Using the Computer: Especially useful when emotion is running high. Adopting a calm, measured voice and presenting facts or structure can restore a sense of order. The risk is emotional distance, so this needs to be balanced.
Using the Distracter: Humor, surprise, or shifting the focus temporarily can defuse tension or interrupt unproductive spirals. The distracter helps parties reset, especially when they are entrenched.
Returning to the Leveler: Ultimately, the mediator’s home base should be the leveler. From here, authenticity and congruence can be modelled. But the other stances are tools—not disguises, but deliberate moves in service of resolution.
Satir once wrote, “Every person is doing the best they can, given the resources they have.” The categories remind us that beneath every posture is a person trying to survive something difficult. From a mediator’s perspective, recognizing these dynamics allows for more strategic interventions.
In closing, it is important to make a couple of points. First, the Satir categories are not a rigid typology. It is a way of looking at communicational dynamics. Secondly, it is not static. A party manifesting a placating stance may well transform into a blamer if pushed too far. Hence, one must constantly be calibrating to where parties are coming from.
Of course, it is far more complex than a blog entry can do justice to. However, I hope it provides a starting point and that you have found this useful! Thanks for reading!
________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Mediation Blog, please subscribe here.
