Popular media have been reporting on various online alternatives to face-to-face interaction whether talking about classroom teaching, yoga instruction, healthcare visits and more. As a result, a number of people have asked me about how well this “new” form of communication works for mediation.

Actually, online mediation has been around for quite some time, with its origins starting with the necessity to build trust within the world of e-commerce. In 1995, eBay was launched, and in 2002, PayPal became a wholly owned subsidiary. As the number of sellers, buyers and transactions increased at these sites, so did the number of disputes. In 1999, eBay sponsored a pilot program to mediate disputes between buyers and sellers. With the success of the pilot, eBay initially contracted with an Internet startup, SquareTrade, to handle the program. All communication was by e-mail. The complaining party explained the issue and possible solutions. The defending party would also use e-mail to counter. If no settlement was reached, a mediator wound intervene. eBay later took over the program itself and in 2010 claimed to have handled over 60 million disputes with an 80% settlement rate for its automatic processes.

Several other Internet startups offered online dispute resolution. Cybersettle was founded in 1996 and claims to have settled $1.9 billion in disputes for medical billing, insurance claims and municipalities.

With various online video platforms, many mediators are offering online versions of traditional face-to-face mediation. One early study of online mediation using simulation disputes showed that mediators who used a hybrid of the facilitative and evaluative styles reported being able to utilize them online. However, mediators who used a more facilitative style of mediation online reported the need to become more directive and evaluative in order to maintain momentum in the session. Supporting that conclusion were the role-playing disputants who preferred when the mediators were more proactive and directive.

The study raises the question whether there is something in the online environment conducive to mediators becoming more directive in problem solving and disputants becoming more accepting of that approach. The authors of the study concluded that the nature of online mediations encouraged the mediators to focus on the conflict itself rather than giving attention to interaction styles.

Whether this changes as mediators become more comfortable dealing with online sessions is yet to be seen. But the message is online mediation works well and is here to stay.

A previous post on mediating workplace disputes generated several emails and phone calls. Here are two examples that were requested as a result:

1.) External mediations that really work.

Perhaps one of the best examples regarding the use of external mediators is by the United States Postal Service during the mid-1990s when employees in Florida filed a class action suit claiming that the USPS Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint process was slow, remote and ineffective in dealing with workplace disputes. Eventually, the parties agreed that a workplace mediation program would be an effective way to address such issues and a pilot program was introduced in 1994. Since then it grew nationwide to become officially known as REDRESS and made available to all postal service employees. The style of mediation used in the program is the transformative style, which was implemented by the USPS with the objective to “transform” working relationships by having the disputing parties openly discuss their issues to gain a better knowledge of their conflicts and improve their skills to communicate with one another. The Post Office believes this results in a better workplace environment. 

2.) Internal mediations that really work.

There are examples of organizations that have established quasi-independent units within their HR departments to do workplace mediations. In some way these units resemble ombudsman offices. In Scandinavian countries the concept of ombudsman originally meant someone authorized to act on behalf of another. Later in Sweden, the concept was used for an agency independent of the executive branch of government to safeguard the rights of citizens by investigating complaints and attempting to resolve them. The concept has grown worldwide and currently used by corporations and non-profit organizations, hospitals, universities, and government agencies to serve employees who request help to deal with a conflict. To avoid the masculine-limiting word, the concept is now more often referred to as ombudsperson or simply, ombuds. In organizational settings, the ombuds function independently and report only to the CEO or board of directors. The ombuds is a neutral party who works to resolve work-related disputes in a confidential and safe environment. Ombuds may engage in fact-finding, typically to determine if proper procedures were followed for disputes involving pay, benefits, discipline and termination. Along with mediation, Ombuds also use counseling and recommendations to top management to deal with the variety of disputes that can arise between employees and managers, including performance reviews, transfers and promotions and inappropriate behaviors. Ombuds do not have the authority to make decisions that are binding, but they can make recommendations to the parties involved in a disagreement.