Archive for the ‘Topic – Mediation’ Category

Mediation matters

Saturday, November 19th, 2011

As a result of my last post on Steps and the process they went through in reforming, I received an email asking me about tips on successful mediation.

ACAS and CIPD have published an excellent guide, “Mediation – an Employer’s Guide”.  If you are considering implementing a mediation process in your organisation, I think it’s invaluable. It is also very helpful if you just want to learn more about the process of mediation. If, however, you don’t read long documents, just don’t have time to read the booklet, or want to hear someone else’s views on mediation, here goes.

Mediations are probably some of the most enjoyable things I do in the work environment . This is partly because I have seen how beneficial they can be to both the individuals involved and their organisations, and partly because they are exciting to facilitate. I considered for several minutes whether I should use the word “exciting” in case it sounded frivolous – but I do find them exciting.

They are exciting because I never know what is going to happen and I always feel I have to be at the top of my game when dealing with them. The participants will react in all sorts of ways – dependent upon what I say and do, and what the other person or persons say and do. I think my overall tip is that a mediator needs to go into such situations with the “I can handle” belief as opposed to the less confident “I need to handle”. If a person is approaching the handling of mediations with the latter attitude, I would suggest that they undertake some co-mediation before undertaking them alone.

Many people advocate meeting with the participants several days before the mediation in order that they know you, understand that it is a voluntary process, understand how the process is likely to unfold and have the opportunity to ask you any questions. I see the sense in that, but there are also times when I would not meet individuals until the day of the mediation. This would particularly be the case where I am working as an internal ediator (i.e. as a fellow employee) and the individuals are working closely together. I need them both (or all) to know that I am independent and that I have not taken sides with either party prior to the mediation. So, if it also meets their needs (and it often does as they have already decided the mediation will not work!) then I explain to them individually on the day what is likely to happen, my role, etc.

Whichever process I follow though, I never discuss the issues that we ae meeting about and at the start of the meeting when they come together I always ask each person to confirm that this is the case. This is really important for me so that I enter the situation with no ‘baggage’ or information that I might otherwise let slip into the conversation, and so that the parties know that I am impartial.

As for the process itself, the key to a successful mediation is encouraging and enabling people to talk in terms of facts as opposed to adjectives. By the time we have got to the mediation stage, they are almost always viewing their relationship or the situation in terms of adjectives. They are often running on negative emotion, which is great fuel for generating a lack of objectivity.

Once we are in a room all together, one person gets the chance to explain the situation from their perspective. Using only facts. I stop the monologue whenever an adjective is used – unless it is the person explaining how something made them feel. And the other person(s) cannot interrupt – hence why I call it a monologue. They can each make notes to remind them of points they want to make, but they can’t interject. This makes them listen – which, after sticking to the facts, is the second most important aspect of a mediation. Using monologues also stops arguments and disagreements – up until getting together for the formal mediation they will often have jumped into the situation, and no listening takes place.

And facts generally get people to start to listen – because facts have been missing for so long, so they hear a different story. If I have mediated successfully, I have helped to change the record.

By the time the other person then gets to give their monologue it is usually a little easier for the mediator. And if you achieve that as the mediator, the rest of it is relatively easy.

At the conclusion, I always encourage them to write down what they have agreed. This is so important. It means that they have clarity on what they have agreed, and have almost ‘a statement’ that they can read or give to other interested parties – which limits the potential for reverting to adjectives!

I remember one that I facilitated where the individuals would not even look at each other at the start – they sat back to back with their arms folded. Gradually, as they listened to facts they became increasingly engaged. The making of a written note for future reference, a look over the shoulder, moving the position of the chairs – all great signs for the mediator! After 4 hours together, they understood what had actually taken place, accepted each other’s position, agreed a ‘statement’ to give to the other members of their team and decided to go out for a meal together that evening.

Their manager called it a “miracle”. I was pleased with the impact on productivity and performance it had for the team, but I wouldn’t have called it a miracle. I just enabled people to deal in facts and listen to each other.

One of my previous posts gives additional assistance and structure for mediations – “Can you afford not to do this?” explains a model called CUDSA which I always use in such circumstances.

If this generates any other questions for you, I’m happy to try and answer them. Alternatively, what are your tips for other mediators?


‘Tragedy’ into triumph

Monday, October 24th, 2011

In the late 1990’s when our children were still at primary school, we went to see a few live bands – perhaps ‘groups’ would be more accurate than ‘bands’ – that I wouldn’t have otherwise gone to see. There was a huge difference in quality. B*Witched were so poor it made me angry at the time having spent so much money on the tickets, and 911 were not much better. But there were also some very good gigs, too. Both Spice Girls and Steps put on excellent shows which we all enjoyed – in fact I enjoyed far more than I ever thought I would.

Consequently, when I recently saw a short series advertised on Sky TV about Steps potentially reforming, I was sufficiently interested to watch it.

Having watched the first of the four episodes, I understood more about why and how they had broken up as a group – and it was abundantly clear that it had not been a happy event.

The more I saw of the programme, the more apparent it was that it was a great advert for mediations, the reasons they happen and what they can achieve. For this reason, it made it captivating viewing.

For anyone unfamiliar with mediation, it is a process to help resolve (generally) interpersonal disputes within the workplace. It usually involves a third party – the mediator – bringing the two or more sides together with the aim of achieving a mutual agreement.

Mediation can be most effective when used at the start of any disagreement, before the conflict escalates in the workplace. An early intervention can prevent the sides from becoming entrenched, and stop the situation engulfing other people or members of the team.  If there is no early intervention, there is the potential for the dispute to become more serious – and possibly for it to become so serious, the relationships involved cannot be reconciled.

Conflict between individuals that is not managed effectively is also potentially expensive for organisations – lost productivity, related sickness and legal advice are all serious costs. And if the situation is not resolved, they can lead to tribunals. According to the conciliation service ACAS, in 2007-8, the number of individual employment tribunals rose to over 90,000.

Having said all that, I am not saying that mediation is a panacea, and there are some cases of conflict where it will not be suitable.

But it could have worked for Steps. In fact, the programme demonstrated an extended version of a mediation – and was an excellent example of how beneficial it can be.

During the latter end of their 5 years together, factions formed within Steps (they were definitely out of step – sorry, couldn’t resist it!). They started to talk about each other rather than to each other. They made assumptions about what was going on rather than find out what was actually happening. They didn’t value other members and so made no attempt to listen to them. And they viewed their world judgementally in terms of adjectives rather than fact.

Things got so bad that two of the group resigned an hour before the final show of a tour – leaving the other three to go on stage trying to take in the enormity of the end of their band.

Ten years on they had agreed to meet up. It was visibly apparent from the start how much anger and frustration some members had been carrying during the intervening years. It was very uncomfortable for others. But they had started talking. And they started to listen. They were asking inquisitive questions, talking in terms of their feelings, and explaining why they had one things.

But several months of not talking and then 10 years of anger and other negative emotions are not properly dealt with in one meeting.

Several meeting took place – some as a whole group and some within smaller groups where there were still tensions. They now had time – something they had little of when recording and touring. It showed how investing time in a team makes it stronger and more productive.

Eventually everything had been said. It didn’t make the wrongs right, but it enabled each of them to move on. The feelings had been explored and put to bed – they were ‘left luggage’ rather than ‘baggage’.

At the end of the programme it was apparent that it had been helpful for all of them. There had been learning – about themselves and each other.  They were more comfortable with each other, and in some cases the relationships were stronger than they ever had been.

Okay, it was TV and was to promote a reunion and a new tour – we only saw what we were supposed to see. But the emotions weren’t put on – and whatever might have been left out of the programme, it was an excellent example of how mediation can work. But if you find yourself in such a situation, or are managing something similar, don’t leave it 10 years!

As for the new tour, I’ll give this one a miss – but if the concerts are as good as last time, they will be well worth a visit!