Whether face-to-face or online, the workplace is the setting for many of life’s most upsetting conflicts. In one university setting, an associate vice president found herself in continual disagreement with the campus vice president. The VP felt she was not doing her job; on the other hand, the associate VP felt her boss was not giving her the resources necessary to perform the duties of her office. Some might think this was a simple dispute the two of them could work out face-to-face. But conflicts are organic; they have a life of their own and grow. The associate VP began to feel a victim of bullying by her superior and found the stress to be increasingly debilitating. In contrast, The VP felt his authority was being publicly questioned and challenged.

They both did agree on two things. One was to try and resolve their issues by mediation in a meeting with their director of human resources. That mediation lasted all of 15 minutes. The HR director began the meeting by asking the associate vice president to explain why she was unwilling to do what the vice president was asking her to do. The HR director put her on the defensive immediately and made it clear he saw her as the problem. 

This example raises the question of who should mediate workplace disputes? An internal mediator, such as someone from HR, has the advantage of knowing the organization and of having insight into the context of a dispute. But, an internal mediator may not be perceived as neutral and may also raise concerns about confidentiality. Parties may assume that an internal mediator is biased and in favor of management. 

Some organizations use an external mediator who may likely be more experienced in dispute resolution and might be considered as a neutral participant in the process. However, using an external mediator involves a monetary expense and could delay scheduling the mediation. And involving an external mediator often makes the dispute seem more formal. 

When I was recently asked about using HR to mediate a workplace dispute, I first explained that by definition, mediation must be voluntary. Employees may request mediation or may be offered mediation. Mediation must also be voluntary for management, that is, employees cannot expect that management participate when mediation is requested nor can management expect that employees agree to mediation. Secondly, participants in mediation have total control over the outcome, that is, no outcome can be forced upon them. 

Finally, there is nothing to lose since workplace mediation, as is true for other forms of the practice, the majority result in mutually agreeable outcomes. But even if no outcome is reached, parties report that the mediation helped to better understand workplace relationships and issues, as well as lower stress.

You may ask what happened to the two university administrators. The associate vice president felt her situation was hopeless and resigned. The vice president could not find a replacement who would accept the position with the resources assigned to the office and had to rely on other staff before another person would accept the position. The extended search took several months. Both parties, as well as the university, lost in this dispute. Could it have been resolved with a different mediator? I think so.

It would seem that if disputing parties want to resolve outstanding issues using mediation that it should be fairly easy to accomplish. One problem, however, is that most of us carry assumptions that can easily derail progress during the sessions. Some of these assumptions are so basic that we don’t really consider them as factors that impact the process. Here are a few that I have found problematic:

1.) “Tell me what happened.” — For many people that request really is, “Tell me what happened in the way that I would tell a story.” And this typically means telling the story in chronological, cause-and-effect order. In other words, tell me what happened first and then what happened as a consequence of that. Actually, people usually tell their stories in order of importance, that is, they will tell you the most importance thing to them first, then other events of lesser importance. Imagine two people together: One wants to talk about the most important thing that happened first. The other person discounts that by asking to hear what things occured before that. The first person might feel that the second person doesn’t understand or appreciate the importance of the event that matters to them.

2.) “Let’s set emotions aside and discuss this rationally.” — The person to whom that is said might hear “Your emotions are not valid, nor important, and you are somehow less skilled than I am because I can control my emotions.” For most of us, emotions are what the conflict is about and not to express and deal with them discounts their importance. Such a person cannot be effective in dispute resolution while being asked to ignore their emotions. because those feelings are most relevant to them.

3.) “Let’s talk this through and reach an agreement.” — Joint, oral, on-the-spot problem solving is a skill. Some are comfortable doing just that. Others are less so and might hear, “You’re going to have to come up with an agreement with me on the spot without any help.” Someone more accustomed to reaching consensus by discussing with friends, family or legal council will hear that they are being forced to act immediately and independently—something they may not be experienced or comfortable doing alone.

These three are just some examples of the assumptions we can make in attempting dispute resolution that can negatively influence the most well-intended attempts. When discussions reach difficulties, I recommend stopping and considering just what are the basic assumptions that are being made about the process itself.

Unless the process works for all, it won’t work at all.