No doubt disagreements and conflicts are serious business. But does that mean participants in mediation expect their mediators to always be somber and no-nonsense?

 Most successful mediators know how and when to use humor. For example, a distinguished and colorful one who works for the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is Bill Usery, whose mediations are legendary. His achievements include the first collective bargaining agreement among seven unions in the newly created, semi-autonomous U.S. Postal Service; the National Football League pre-season strike; and the thirteen-month walkout of mine workers in Harlan County, Kentucky.

When an exhaustive session between railroad workers and management deadlocked with both parties refusing to talk any further, Usery left the room to get a cigar. He returned wearing a button that read “We Try Harder,” a well-known slogan by Avis, the car rental company. Everyone appreciated the visual, laughed, and eventually reached a settlement. Usery’s hunch that humor would ease tensions was spot on.

 Recently, several community mediators used another popular ad, “What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.” It was reported one of the participants during a mediation couldn’t grasp the concept of confidentiality, which created much frustration. The mediator in charge looked at this person and with a smile said, “You’ve heard ‘What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas,’ well what happens in mediation stays in the mediation.” Everyone laughed, the particpant understood, and the session went forward.

 Recently, Jim Melamed, co-founder of Mediate.com, posted a list of “Mediation Mugs” available on Amazon.com, suggesting having one at the mediation table might provide some comic relief.

Some of my favorites are:

“Don’t make me use my mediator voice.”

“Only the strong become mediators.”

“This is what an awesome mediator looks like.”

“I am a mom and a mediator. Nothing scares me.”

All this to say, a smile and laugh, when appropriate, can help conflicting parties work together.

Recent events have brought renewed concern about incidents of workplace violence.

Last summer the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, all published a report on fatal and non-fatal violence in and away from the workplace. According to the study, an average of 1.3 million non-fatal violent workplace victimizations occurred annually. Approximately half were committed by people the victims knew. Further, in 2019, 454 people lost their lives as a result of workplace violence.

These reports galvinized a push to identify a single cause for the violence and demands for a solution, whether it be gun control or addressing mental health.

As one who has studied conflict, I would point out a cause and possible course of action for at least some of this violence. Conflict theorists have long made it clear disagreements are inevitable in organizations, whether minor or major.

Conflict theorists have long pointed out when fair and accessible means of dealing with issues, such as ombuds offices, union grievance procedures, and affordable legal remedies don’t exist, people express their emotion and frustration in nonproductive ways. Modern managers know they must provide ways for disagreements to be addressed productively. Non-productive ways range from doing only what is required of the job, taking office supplies home, rumors and gossip, damaging equipment, verbal and physical fights, and even the use of firearms to threaten and harm others.

One constructive management practice is to endorse and participate in workplace mediation. When employees know management will mediate workplace conflicts, employees are less likely to engage in non-productive expression since they're aware there's an opportunity to be heard. If instead the employee feels there's no such option, potential workplace danger increases.