Internal mediation: to mediate or not?
This is a free article you might find interesting. It’s also a sample of our knowledge and how we can help you get a bit better at your job, and/or how we can help you fix a problem. If you’re interested in our consultation services, contact us.
This should go without saying but disclaimer: The information provided below is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or other professional advice. You should consult with a qualified professional for specific advice tailored to your circumstances.
If you’re interested learning more about this topic, we have courses: how to settle conflict is relevant to this, or you can find all of our courses here.
I don’t know if this is Oprah’s fault or not. I say Oprah, but it could be any pop psychology tropes that constitute our very flawed understanding of how humans work. I am pretty certain it’s not Jerry Springer’s fault though. It’s common for us to think that we can solve people with an ‘ah ha’ moment; that through dialogue (there may or may not be a couch involved), people gain insight, and through insight they are cured. But unfortunately its just doesn’t work that way.
There is no ‘aha’ panacea. No single insight is going to fix things, so we can live happily ever after.
Mediation is the process of getting two (or more but generally just two) people together to resolve conflict between them. It can work, and it can fail to work, and it can even make things worse. So knowing when to use this tool is important, so lets discuss some of the key elements in play so we can make deploy appropriately.
What’s the root problem? Is it behaviour? practices? or competing priorities?
Mediation is best suited to addressing inter-person behavioural problems, IF that is the actual problem. We look to mediation if two people aren’t getting on, aren’t cooperating, and this is affecting the team. But often this is a symptom of a deeper problem, and often that deeper problem isn’t equally across both parties. If the root problem is that one person isn’t doing their job, isn’t doing their part, isn’t pulling their weight, this can lead of conflict, but this just a symptom, not the root cause.
With some exceptions, the solution we are looking to achieve at mediation is both parties amending their behaviour in the workplace; ‘I’ll stop doing x, if you stop acting like y, and we will both start doing z’. If both of the agreed changes are behavioural (i.e. how they act toward each other) then is reasonable; but if one of the changes is performance (i.e. doing an aspect of their job they should have been doing) then there is a heightened risk the mediation will not go well. If it was me, I’m not likely to be happy if either a) my performance of my job is being discussed with a unliked co-worker, or b) I’m being asked nicely to be polite, whereas they are being asked nicely to do their job- does this make it optional for them?
Who’s got the power?
You shouldn’t hold mediations where the power isn’t equal. In addition to formal power due to position (legitimate power), people can exercise power in workplace due their capacity reward and punish, their expertise, and their referent power (their social status, interpersonal skills, mana, and/or likeability).
Power is easy to understand but hard to quantify, so let’s use a simple rule of thumb. If both parties are approximately equally able to speak their mind to each other, then you sufficiently equal power. If one party is more likely to speak their truth, and the other person just take it, then you are unlikely to have a fair outcome.
When to do
Mediation is a rare tool, that when used well can get things back on track. Mediation works were you have two approximately equal parties at odds, approximately equally to blame, stubbornly prepared to stay in conflict than trying to resolve the problem. Mediation works well were two parties have opinions about the other, than can be dispelled through mutal explanation- often we have misunderstandings about why people do things, so explaining why often goes along way.
When not to do
Whatever you do, don’t do it with a bullying allegation. I say this both because I’ve seen it, and because whilst it’s not always alleged, there’s always a strong possibility some form of bullying is going on. I discuss bullying elsewhere, but power plays a big part in bullying- that one person can get away with damaging behaviour to another, because that person has less power to resist.
sometimes the problem isn’t behavioural, sometimes its the system. Its not people being unreasonable, but their reactions to unreasonable expectations placed upon them.
Don’t mediate when:
Power is unequal.
The agreed solution is going to be unfair to one party.
Neither party are responsible for what is causing the problem.
The only viable solution is beyond the control of either party.
Can you do it?
Maybe- are you any good? Aside from the soft skills of the HR person, can HR internally mediate, or is it better that a third party be brought in? Like all good questions, the answer is ‘it depends’ but here are some factors to consider.
Escalation can be a risk. I talk about escalation elsewhere, but conflict can increase if the parties feel they need to get representation, and external third parties can prompt that thinking. The more familiar the less the risk, so depending on how well you are known to the business and the people involved, you may be seen as a familiar and approachable option, or alternatively a head office unknown.
Objectivity and impartiality is important. Their manager may be able to do it, but they may have perceived favourites, or the conflict may span teams. You may be bettered suited, especially if you hired both and so they have some goodwill towards you.
If you have 10 seconds, please complete this survey. It helps us know what people want to know.
