Mediation is an alternative form of dispute resolution that is growing in popularity and success rates, both in family, civil and workplace situations. I think mediation will expand further in the future and will play an increasingly important role in our lives. It is an approach to resolving differences between people that can have a powerful and positive impact on costs and the likelihood that the relationship between the parties is enhanced through a mutual understanding of the other person’s perspective. Though not all mediation will succeed, the process should never make the situation worse, and should lead, if not to a resolution, to an enhanced understanding of two differing views.

Mediation is a process of dispute resolution where a neutral, third party is invited to intervene in the workplace to help achieve a constructive resolution of a dispute or a difference between people which is affecting how they work. A number of key features of mediation are:

• It is voluntary. People who take part need to do so voluntarily.
• It has to be confidential. The mediator cannot send a report to management or break the confidence of either party.
• It has to be safe for both parties to get involved. It is therefore essential that ground rules are established between both individuals before the joint session takes place.
• Mediation is focused on achieving a solution, if possible. By helping both people to see the others point of view, although difficult, a new understanding can take place.
• It is interests based, dignified and respectful, aiming ideally for a win/win outcome.
• It follows a process including preparation by both parties, understanding the issues, developing options jointly, and finally, reaching agreement, where possible.
• Outcomes are generated by the people themselves, not the mediator. In this way, these outcomes are more likely to last as they are not imposed.

Within the working environment, there are various types of mediation that can be used including evaluative, facilitative and transformative. Evaluative is the form whereby the mediator tries to get both parties to agree at the end of the process and is one which includes the mediator giving his or her opinion at the end of the intervention if both parties don’t agree. Facilitative mediation is the most commonly used approach in Ireland and is one whereby the mediator listens to both sides, does not judge, reframes some of the points made and tries to encourage understanding between the parties. If agreement is reached through a shared understanding and generation of ideas by the parties, this is written down and signed by both sides. Finally, transformative mediation is focused on getting the relationship to improve between both sides as a result of the mediation. The goal is to enhance the quality of the relationship between both sides so that the relationship moves to a new level in the future. The type of mediation needs to be specified in advance so that there is no ambiguity about the role and approach of the mediator in the process. All parties involved need to know what they have signed up to and how they can expect the process to work.

Conflict at work – what it is and why it arises

Conflict, at its core is about differences. We judge others by their behaviours, but ourselves by our intentions. It is when there is a clash or a difference between our values, attitudes, needs and expectations that conflict often arises. Conflict can arise from differences in either cognitive views about things or from differences in personal relationships, with the former relating to the facts about a situation, and the latter relating more to feelings. Very often, conflict at work relates to unmet needs by one party or another regarding something that is of importance to that person. Although conflict at work often has a negative connotation, a certain amount of conflict can be a positive driver between people as it sparks new thinking and a challenging of the status quo. Tuckman, for example, said that storming or conflict among a group of people is a vital first step in the formation of a team.  It is when the conflict gets personal or focuses on damaging the other person or scoring points, that we are talking about the negative aspects that can cause long lasting destruction and damage to the relationship between individuals.  Conflict, if unmanaged, can sometimes spiral out of control where as the conflict escalates, both people blame each other, defend themselves and often attack the other person. Typically, this stems from the psychological reaction of fight or flight which drives much of human behaviour when faced with a threat.

Fight - Achieving personal goals becomes the driving force when interacting with others at work or in a particular situation.  The person in this case will not concede any of their own preferred outcomes.  This style can be used when the individual needs of the person are too important to compromise on.  There are also people who use this style predominantly regardless of how important the issue is as they see each conflict as a threat and a potential power struggle.

Avoid - This behaviour can result from a fear of confrontation which the person using the style may have. They may use this approach as a way also of maintaining the relationship as they may not be confident enough to confront the cause of the conflict. This style can also be used when one person feels there is nothing to gain by dealing with the cause of the conflict and they therefore choose to avoid any confrontation. Also it can be used when emotions are running high and the timing may be better to wait before confronting the other person.

Resolve -This is an alternative to the typical fight or fight responses. In using this approach when dealing with the conflict, both parties try to resolve the disagreement in a way that is mutually beneficial. In this instance, both sets of needs are deemed to be equally important and dealt with accordingly. Resolution can be achieved when both people involved agree to compromise as a way of moving forward. Alternatively, it may also be possible to reach agreement by collaborating. This approach ensures both sets of needs are met without compromise through joint problem solving.

Causes of Conflict

There are many causes of conflict within the organisation including:

1. Poor organisational structures where people may feel alienated or isolated, thus the spirit of competitiveness and non cooperation may be strong.
2. Poor communication where communication lines are poor and people do not have the opportunity to express how they feel or to clear up causes of conflict which may arise.
3. Personality conflicts which happen when people clash with each other due to different styles of interaction or differing values or beliefs.
4. Change - when there is a lot of change within the organisation which is poorly managed, this can lead to people feeling insecure and threatened.  The tension which this then causes can lead to frustration and anger which in turn affects how people deal with one another at work.
5. Lack of teamwork /poor performance - this can be another cause of conflict if some in the team believe other colleagues are not pulling their weight or are not competent in the jobs they do.

Overall, as was highlighted earlier, conflict often arises when there is a non-acceptance of the differences which exist between people at work.  It is also more likely to happen in organisations where there is a high level of uncertainty or where there are poor industrial relations. The atmosphere that this causes can often result in a raising of tension levels which can exacerbate a situation where there may already be tension of some kind between individuals.

Effects of Conflict

There are positive aspects associated with conflict in certain situations as it enables feelings to be expressed whilst recognising there are different views or perspectives.  Conflict becomes a more serious problem when it is not dealt with effectively, or at all, and where the feelings which result are not expressed or resolved.  The negative effects of conflict are that communication breaks down, individual needs are not heard or met, creativity is stagnated and relationships with others deteriorate. Therefore, organisations which don't encourage the effective resolution of conflict will usually have lower staff morale, strained relationships, higher levels of fear and tension among staff and lower overall productivity levels.

The Role and Skills of the Mediator

It is the mediator’s role to help both parties to listen and understand each other. He/she meets the parties separately first to establish their perspectives and to understand in more detail where each one is coming from. A key element of the mediator’s role is to create a safe environment when both parties come together, to help develop a shared understanding. Mediators often help the parties to create possibilities and options by the way they reframe issues, ensuring both sides understand the feelings and needs of the other person in a way they may not have before.

Key Skills of a Mediator

Although mediators will have different personalities, there are some core skills and attributes which need to be developed if a mediator is to succeed in his/her role. These include:

• Listening
• Reframing
• Patience
• Helping others think something through
• Questions
• Empathy
• Being non-judgemental

Listening

Active listening is one of the most critical skills of a mediation. He/she must be able to hear what the person is saying, but also what they are not saying. It is the skill of picking up the emotion behind what the person is saying and really understanding this that makes an excellent mediator stand out, as well as showing each person that they are heard properly and understood. The mediator needs to question both sides, listen, encourage people to listen and hear each others perspectives, and to successfully bring the dispute to a settlement if possible. This includes listening to what is said, and what is not said, to establish the real message and feelings of the person. This centres around really picking up the meaning, the feelings behind this, and identifying the needs of each party. Clearly, the mediator should never act as a judge, but both parties are likely to have more confidence in a mediator who really listens. This is a skill that can be developed once the mediator recognises its value, and just how central it is to the process.

A critical thing to listen for is the intention of the parties. An example of how a mediator might listen and show he/she is listening would be to say “I’m picking up that you might be sceptical” or “It sounds like you are feeling upset, angry, let down etc. because of ….”. In this way the mediator is checking they have picked up the message (both facts and feelings) in the way the person intended. By reflecting back the underlying emotions and facts, the accuracy of what has been heard is checked. By doing this a number of times throughout the mediation process confidence and trust in the mediator are built up.

A critical element of the listening process is to avoid making any assumptions as the mediator needs to be open to the real meaning of what the person is saying. This is one of the most vital skills in the whole mediation process as, according to the psychologist Carl Rogers, the most basic human need is to be heard and understood. It is often the absence of this that leads people into conflict in the first instance, therefore a key part of the mediator’s role is to restore this understanding between two people.

Questions

A second critical skill for all mediators is that of asking questions to increase understanding, reality testing the situation, and to reframe how both people may view the situation they are in. This skill of reality testing means the mediator asks questions of both parties which encourages them to check the reality of the situation as they see it. In order to develop this skill effectively, the mediator needs to be curious. The types of questions a mediator can ask include open, closed, probing, clarification and challenging questions. Open questions help the mediator to dig deeper and include questions such as what, when, where, and why. Closed questions check the understanding and can be answered yes or no. Probing questions are based on a reply that is given and help the mediator to find out further information based on what the person has said. Clarification questions check that the mediator has understood what has been said or what is meant by it, and challenging questions push the onus back to the person to think further about what they have said. All of these questions are useful in the mediation, so care needs to be taken to ask the right questions at the right time.

Questions are vital to ensure that the reality of each person is challenged, while also being central to reframing the problem or the behaviour as viewed by both parties. Reality testing is about asking the way the person views the issue such as ‘Is it possible that you could work with each other without being friends? Is everyone in your team friends with each other? Could there be another explanation? So you are saying he is late all the time? You feel she is always rude to you in front of the team? Testing someone’s reality involves the mediator selecting the right time to do this through the questions he/she asks and how they are phrased. The core of this skill centres around getting the other person to look at the way they are currently viewing the problem or the impossible situation as they see it. The reality is that there may be another way to view the problem. It is similar to the glass half empty or half full idea. We cannot change the other person, but this approach by the mediator can help the person to challenge how they are viewing the problem and to view it in a more realistic way. The questions asked are focused on the reality that exists, as opposed to the story that we often create around that reality. An example of this might also include our perceptions of why the person is behaving as they are eg. She is jealous of me and behaves in a bullying way as a result of this. Frames are cognitive shortcuts people use to make sense of complex issues, so the challenge for the mediator is to help both parties create new cognitive shortcuts when needed.

Questions are also vitally important as the mediator encourages the parties to see the issue when it is put to them in a different way. The reframing may include stating the complaint in the opposite (but positive) way, and asking a question around it. It includes identifying the real meaning, needs and concerns of one person and putting them to the other person in a way that he/she is more likely to hear the real message. An example of this would be:

If one person in dispute says ‘ She is always so critical of me’ or ‘He never listens to me.’

The mediator might say ‘You would like her to be able to see the positive aspects of what you do’ or ‘You would like him to listen more to you’.  The art of reframing is to maintain the conflict in all its richness, but to help people look at it differently in a more positive way.

Challenges to becoming an Effective Mediator

Overall though, one of the biggest challenges to the application of mediation skills among managers in Irish businesses, is the criticality of patience and the need to not fix the problem too quickly. Many busy managers who may want an issue between two people resolved through mediation may see this as a quick fix alternative to a third party intervention. If a manager is trying to develop the skills of mediation, he/she needs to leave many of their solution focused, fast paced managerial skills outside the mediation room. In my view this is the single greatest challenge to the up skilling of managers in this vital skill. Not all managers can be trained to be effective mediators as patience and being non-judgemental are vital skills/ traits. However, once it is recognised that the inherent need to fix things when there is conflict is not something that forms part of an effective mediator’s toolkit, is the vital first step to developing this skill. By recognising the need to be neutral and non judgemental, and focusing on this throughout the process, the chances of success are higher for the new mediator.

Another key challenge as I see it, is the ability to keep the process on track, and not to veer off in a direction that one or other of the parties wants to go down. So, by adhering to the recommended structure which includes preparation, understanding the issues, developing options and reaching agreement, a mediator is more likely to be able to manage the various stages of the mediation process. I think the establishment of early ground rules from the outset helps to manage the process, as these are rules that both sides have signed up to. Therefore if the process goes off track, or one party veers off  to talk about an issue which breaks the rules, reminding them of these ground rules is a vital way to bring the mediation back on course. These are two areas which I believe could  be most challenging for many managers, but I think the application of these tips and techniques would  make the process more manageable.

Conclusion

Mediation is not an all purpose solution. It can be very successful in certain situations provided both parties have signed up to the ground rules, process and objectives. It is an additional approach to use in certain situations, particularly where the atmosphere in the organisation overall is positive, and where the trust between both parties has not broken down completely. It has to be used early, as if it is left until all other options have been tried, it is unlikely to work.  The basic argument for using mediation is that a lot of people have gained a lot by talking about their problems before there is a need to go down a more formal route.  The lower down that the problem can be dealt with, the higher the likelihood that it will be resolved more quickly therefore leading to greater satisfaction on both sides. Too much formalisation of workplace conflicts can lead to an escalation of the problem in many instances, which leads to greater stress for all concerned, as well as higher costs in terms of compensation and settlement costs to employees who may leave the organisation. More than this though, I believe that progressive organisations are those that try a range of options to resolve conflicts between people at work for the reasons outlined, but also to provide a safer, more positive and ultimately, more productive workplace for all their staff.

Jenny Hayes, Head of Ibec Academy