Having facilitated study circles for same-sex marriage and immigration issues, I have seen how the structure this method provides makes it possible for individuals who begin the group with firm, extreme positions, are able to respectfully listen to and consider other positions by those who hold different views as individuals.

A study circle is a small group of people who meet for an extended period to discuss and explore an issue or topic with a focus on improving the listening of the participants. In the United States, study circles have been formed around issues such as race relations, same-sex marriage and immigration. It is exactly such issues about which some speakers, unwilling to listen to other views, express strong opinions. The study circle format encourages people to express their opinions and listen openly to others.

Each study circle has a leader or facilitator who remains neutral throughout the process. The facilitator does not share personal opinions. The facilitator explains that the purpose of the study circle is to deliberate on the issue in a democratic and collaborative way.

The facilitator establishes the following basic group rules:

•      All views should get a fair hearing.

•      Personal attacks are not tolerated.

•     If someone says something that offends another group member, any member of the group should feel free to explain how the comment affected him or her.

•      It is important to hear from everyone in the group. People who tend to talk a lot should make special efforts to give others the opportunity to express their views.

The facilitator monitors the group by noting who has spoken, who hasn’t spoken and what points haven’t had a fair hearing. The facilitator actually says very little. The facilitator’s comments are typically suggestions for group process. For example, rather than providing summaries for the group, the facilitator may ask a group member to summarize. And the facilitator may ensure that reticent members have the opportunity to speak.

The facilitator also assists the group’s critical thinking by ensuring that a wide range of ideas are considered. The facilitator may ask the group to consider a point of view that is not represented in its membership. The facilitator may ask the group to consider advantages and disadvantages of different points of view and may ask the group to think about the values that underlie beliefs. The facilitator is prepared to ask open-ended questions to stimulate discussion.

Study circles highlight the difference between listening to argue and listening to understand.  Some would say, “listening to understand,” is what is needed more of in today’s world.

I’ve been asked by managers several times. whether or not they should attempt to mediate conflicts between employees. Let’s look at some facts: A 2008 survey of 5,000 full-time employees in the United States, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom were asked what managers could do to manage conflicts. 40% said that managers should act as mediators when conflict develops.

But the truth is many organizations do not provide managers with conflict management training and many feel that handling conflict is one of their least important duties, believing employees should deal with their own issues. And while employees may believe that managers should act as mediators, that may not be an appropriate role within some organizations. Though there may or may not be established rules and procedures for how line managers should handle conflicts, without proper training or intervention, dysfunctional conflicts may become detrimental to the organization.

So, if a manager would like to try mediation, and if it’s permitted by their organization, should they? In those cases it is completely appropriate for managers to utilize mediation skills. But remember, the manager might be using some mediation skills, but they are not acting formally nor legally as a mediator.

The manager must clearly describe their role by making it very clear that he or she will assume a neurtral role and that after the meeting, present positions will continue as before the process began. The manager needs to explain the matter of confidentiality. If the manager cannot assure confidentiality of what is to be discussed, then they should be transparent. And the manager should make it known as to what will happen if no agreement is reached. For example, the manager might decide it best to refer the dispute to Human Resources. 

 I would recommend considering using an opening statement similar to this:

Let me explain our meeting today.  I know the two of you have had some conflicts. Before I take any action myself, I want to give the two of you the opportunity to work this out on your own.  In this meeting, I will be a neutral facilitator.  I really don’t know the history of the issues so I will be neutral and impartial. If we’re unable to resolve the disagreement in the next half hour or so, I will refer you to Human Resources.

I’d like to encourage you to be open and honest, but I should say that you should not assume what is said here is confidential.

I know the two of you have worked together for years and believe you’d both like to resolve any issues so the workplace can be as productive for you as it was before this conflict began.

What I’ve learned from experience is that the best way for me to conduct this session is to ask one of you to tell your story uninterrupted. I may ask a few questions at that point. Then I’ll ask the other to tell their story.  Again I may ask a few questions. We’ll then see if through discussion we can work out the issues.  If I think a private meeting with one or both of you might help to move the discussion along, I will do that.

I believe you both want resolution. Withi that in mind, I’d like to ask that we all listen respectfully and do not interrupt each other. Again, I want to give you the opportunity to resolve the issues yourself.

With these cautions, my answer is yes, managers can use mediation skills to help employess deal with interpersonal conflicts in the workplace.