I had an interesting call from someone who just wanted “an easy way” to understand exactly what mediation is and whether or not she should agree to participating in the process.

 I told her to think of it this way: Do you want to stay in the present, deal with the past, or plan the future?

 Some people during current conflicts perceive benefit from continuing the disagreement. For example, they may believe its continuation somehow forces the other party to eventually accept their postion or somehow gives them an upper hand even if ot costs them time and resources. And then there are those who just enjoy the fight for whatever the reason, which is why I tell mediators you can’t force someone to resolve an issue if they are not ready or willing to do so.

 When it comes to disagreements from the past, I explain the differences between the process of Litigation and Arbitration. In Litigation and Arbitration the parties attempt to prove to a third party what wronged them in the past. Of course, I point out that both sides are convinced they are “right” and that taking this position will probably involve considerable money and time as well as increase the stress the conflct created to begin with. It’s important to remember even if one prevails and “proves” the other party “wrong,” that may not necessarily “fix” the problem.

 For the future, I describe mediation as focusing on how the parties will go forward from where they are now. That may mean letting go of the need to “prove” the other party is “wrong” in order to find a way to move forward. And I make it clear that both parties must be committed to working together with the help of neutral third party to find the future arrangement that works for both of them.

To make mediation work is not as much determined by the mediator as by the commitment of both parties to the process and unless they are ready to do so, the mediation will not be successful.

I’m often asked if an Ombuds is the same as a Mediator.

First, I have to comment on the continuing confusion over the word “ombuds” itself. Is it also proper to say ombudsman, ombudsmand, ombudswoman, ombudsperson? Actually, the term has Nordic origins and means “representative.” That’s because in the early 1800s Sweden established the parliamentary ombudsman to safeguard the rights of citizens. The concept generally grew to worldwide acceptance as an office addressing citizen complaints about government actions. Current governments and other organizations continue to struggle with which term to use and there remains no consensus. 

Ombuds are present in government, business, health care facilities, colleges and universities. Today’s ombuds are sources who act with confidentiality and independence providing safe spaces for individuals to voice their concerns and grievances. When dealing with conflicts, ombuds conduct themselves from a neutral position working to transform the relationship between disputing parties. To accomplish this, they must be effective listeners, coaches and mentors to the complaining party, as well as the organization’s management.

Organizational ombuds usually deal with conflicts stemming from perceived gender and racial bias, hiring and evaluation practices, workplace bullying, sexual harassment, plus inconsistencies in management rules and practices. Consider, for example, an employee who due to a medical foot issue consistently takes her shoes off in the office. Her co-workers complain and management responds by ordering her to stop doing so. She brings the issue to the company’s ombuds who consider her concerns, research legal and company regulations, and inform both the employee and management of all the possible resolutions. This may help to keep all employees satisfied and focused on work instead of “the foot problem” and management doesn’t have to deal with what appears to be a minor issue. 

Is the ombuds a mediator? Technically I would say no. That said, ombuds do use mediation practices along with other skills to be an effective representative.