How to Mediate Conflict at Work: A Step-by-Step Guide

There are as many kinds of conflict in the workplace as there are workers – maybe more, because you’d have to multiply the number of workers by each other to determine the numbers of kinds of interactions that might cause conflict.

Mediation can be a wonderful way to resolve conflicts at work, and that flexible process can take many forms.

In this short piece, I’ll describe a basic overview of a “classic” two-party conflict at work, including the role of the mediator and the steps in a traditional mediation. Bear in mind that what I’ll describe is like a recipe for a basic white cake – it’s a good base, but most people will want to add flavors, frosting and other elements to suit their tastes and the situation. With that caveat, here’s an overview.

The Role Of The Mediator

A mediator is a neutral third party who has no authority to impose a decision. The mediator’s primary role is to guide the participants through an organized conversation in which the parties retain control over the outcome. The mediator plays an active role in guiding the process – who speaks when, whether parties are together or in separate rooms, how confidential information is handled and the like. The mediator is a facilitator, not a substantive decision maker.

The mediator must be careful not to intrude on the participants’ autonomy. That is, the parties participation is voluntary and the mediator cannot coerce a party to accept an outcome that they do not choose.

A mediator can also play the role of “agent of reality” in that they can remind the parties of the consequences of rejecting a mediated outcome. For parties in litigation, perhaps this means going to court. In the workplace, the alternative to mediation may be an HR process. The mediator cannot use these alternatives as a cudgel to impinge on the parties’ decision making, but rather can help the parties compare the alternatives “on the table” with the alternatives “away from the table.”

If there is an outcome in mediation, the mediator may be authorized by the parties to report that outcome to the appropriate people in the organization, but if no agreement is reached, the mediator must keep confidential any information that the parties have shared during the course of the mediation (with the caveat that there may be mandatory reporting requirements for certain admissions – e.g., criminal behavior or violations of HR policies regarding harassment and similar situations).

The Steps In A "Typical" Mediation

In the simplest of mediations, the mediator will receive some authority to mediate. This may stem from a workplace policy that names a mediator, or it may be the case that the parties jointly select the mediator. One way or another, the first step is the mediator has to be given the role of mediator and the parties usually play some role in assenting to the appointment. No one wants to participate in a mediation if they don’t trust the mediator to play the role of neutral intermediary, and a mediator should not want to preside over a mediation if the parties don’t trust the mediator. This is why managers with supervisory authority over the participants and some company insiders (including HR, Ombuds and general counsel) may not be the ideal mediators. Perceived neutrality matters as much as actual neutrality.

Once the mediator appointed, they will typically cover the ground rules for the conversation (e.g., the extent and limits of confidentiality) and the basic roadmap for the mediation. Some mediations take place with everyone in the same room and some involve separate sessions known as caucuses.

Most mediations about conflict in the workplace involve some difficult feelings on the part of one or both of the parties, and so most mediations do involve private caucuses. When the parties meet with the mediator privately, they may feel more comfortable sharing their true feelings whereas they may be more guarded when in the presence of the person with whom they share the dispute.

The caucuses usually follow a pattern. The first caucuses tend to be about listening and learning. The mediator can ask questions about what happened and how the parties feel about the situation. The best mediators do not form opinions about the situation and do not push back on the parties’ renditions of their perspectives. After all, the mediator is not a judge or a referee, so it shouldn’t be relevant whether the mediator believes one party or the other. The mediator is ferreting out the parties’ interests.

The second set of caucuses may involve some agreed-upon sharing of information from one participant to the other. The agreement about what can be shared is something the mediator will discuss with the parties during the opening session or separately during the first caucus. The mediator is not trying to create an agreed-upon set of facts but instead trying to get each party to understand the other side’s perspective so they can better appreciate the bargaining range – that is, the range of outcomes that would allow both parties to say “yes” to an agreement.

Subsequent caucuses are usually about the generation and evaluation of options, what many would call the bargaining phase. The best mediators help parties create a menu of options and then these options are evaluated with how they best meet the parties’ interests. The best options exploit shared interests that recognize that sometimes, what is good for one party is good for both. Those options also take into account differing interests, where one party cares deeply about something and the other party is indifferent. And finally, these options need to take care of conflicting interests, in which what is better for one party is less desirable for the other. This last group can involve tradeoffs, and in the best of mediations, parties deal with conflicting interests in a non-conflictual way.

Finally, once the parties have created an exhaustive menu of options and compared them to their interests and to the no-agreement alternatives, the mediator can help the parties to finalize an agreement or to see that they are at an impasse.

Mistakes To Avoid

You may have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people who are novices at something believe it’s easier to master than it really is. Professional tennis players make the game look easy – but anyone who has ventured out onto the court after watching the US Open knows that it may look easy but it isn’t. The same is true about mediation and many people in the workplace who have the best of intentions may wander into some sticky situations if they aren’t careful.

One pitfall to avoid is becoming partisan during the mediation. Perhaps one of the participants is more likeable or a better communicator than the other. Maybe one of the parties shares viewpoints that the mediator holds themselves. None of this should impact the mediator’s neutrality – and that’s harder to do than to say. We like to use the phrase “replace judgment with curiosity” so when a party says things that a mediator may not like or agree with or even understand fully, the proper remedy is more open-ended questions, and not a cocked eyebrow or a skeptical comment.

Another problem can occur when a mediator believes that they see the “right outcome” and then starts maneuvering the parties toward the mediator’s desired outcome rather than letting the parties choose the outcome. The mediator may become impatient when the parties reject the mediator’s suggestions and then the mediator is negotiating with the parties rather than facilitating the parties’ negotiation.

Of course, breaches of confidentiality are destructive to a mediation, including breaches from one caucus room to the other. If parties believe that they told the mediator something in confidence and that information is leaked, trust is destroyed and the possibility of a constructive outcome is much lower if not impossible.

Hard To Handle Situations

Conflict at the workplace can be volatile and may trigger strong emotions on the part of the participants. Voices may rise, tempers may flare and mediators should be ready and prepared to deal with elevated feelings.

Participants come from a wide range of backgrounds and have a wide array of characteristics. A mediator should be comfortable dealing with people from many cultures and who may be neurodiverse. When cultural divides or different ways of seeing the world become an extra layer in the conflict, some mediators may find themselves at sea, and fearful of making a bad situation worse, may retreat from actively facilitating an effective negotiation.

There are many, many ways in which mediations can become complex, and these are just a few. JAMS Pathways has a guide to de-escalating conflict in the workplace that might be helpful in some situations – but it’s no substitute for real training and experience, and that leads to the next topic.

When To Bring In A Professional

No one is embarrassed when they need to call a surgeon to replace their knee. Similarly, when their heating system in their home breaks, they call an HVAC professional. I use an accountant to do my taxes and often need help when my computer is acting up.

But somehow, people feel like they should be able to resolve workplace conflicts as easily as they resolved arguments with their siblings when growing up. Or maybe they are parents who have mediated between their own children – or they are just good listeners.

That’s very different from spending decades learning about conflict and gaining experience resolving difficult disputes. The panelists at JAMS Pathways have generally spent decades of their lives getting professional degrees, being mentored by experienced conflict resolvers and then resolving conflict themselves. Speaking for myself, I’ve been at this full-time for more than 35 years and I still read a lot, participate in educational events, attend conferences and work to sharpen my skills every day.

When problems at your workplace are complex or are causing disruption that you lack the time or skills to resolve, that’s a good time to contact a professional. While I’m loyal member of the JAMS team, we aren’t the only professionals out there and I support the use of anyone with the right skills and experience to help make your workplace the productive place you hope it to be. (And just for good measure, I’ll reiterate my support for the high quality of the JAMS Pathways team.)

In Sum

I’ve described the steps in a basic two-party workplace conflict, and like the vanilla cake I mentioned at the beginning of this blog post, that simple recipe may not match your needs. Mediation can work in conflicts involving multiple parties, many issues, and even multiple branches of an organization. The path from understanding interests to generating and evaluating options to arriving at an outcome (settlement or impasse) can be simple and straightforward or it can be long and full of obstacles. In all these cases, mediation can be an excellent way to work through the thorniest of problems and I’ve watched the process work magically to transform organizations and repair relationships. If you think it may be the right process for your workplace, we look forward to hearing from you. Our workplace conflict resolution services can provide an experienced, neutral facilitator to guide difficult conversations, rebuild trust, and help your team reach resolutions that last.

  Disclaimer:
This page is for general information purposes. JAMS makes no representations or warranties regarding its accuracy or completeness. Interested persons should conduct their own research regarding information on this website before deciding to use JAMS, including investigation and research of JAMS neutrals.