The fragility of mediation

Last week I ran a workshop for some senior, capable HR people from UHR (University Human Resources). The theme was ‘How to make the most of mediation in your workplace.’ We had discussed some really creative ideas about managing resistant parties and managing difficult behaviour – reframing, proportionate conflict facilitation, staying in the impartial mediator role under pressure. As ever, though an underlying theme of pessimism and frustration seeped in as people recounted examples of parties ‘who were just going through the motions’ or ‘wanted revenge or an apology and nothing less’ or ‘didn’t think anything was to do with them so went into denial.’

Of course these situations can be difficult to mediate, and may end up with an incomplete, ineffective or no resolution. These doubts may even prevent the parties going beyond separate meetings. But why does this seem to undermine user confidence in mediation disproportionately? Paul Latreille described this as the ‘fragility’ of mediation:

‘Attitudes towards mediation are in many instances only as positive as the last experience.’

Yes a mediation that does not work out a planned is difficult, but why do we focus on the ‘failures’, the difficult moments and unresolved conflicts. Most of my mediations and those of several hundred colleagues result in success in over 75% of cases (monitored and based on party and client feedback) – issues resolved, communication restored, working relationship improved.

I hope I was positive at my workshop, acknowledging that difficult situations leave their mark and damage confidence, but also encouraging bold, honest and accurate reflection of the many positives that mediation produces. Let’s get the success stories out there. Build confidence by recruiting, training and developing mediators to a high standard.

John Crawley is running our market leading Workplace Mediator 5 day course in London on Public Programme on 13, 14 and 15 November and 20, 21^st November.

John Crawley

The FAIRER workplace investigation process– preventing the rogues

I don’t know if you’ve noticed but the Home Office is to introduce a new system of regulation for private investigators to protect the public from unscrupulous activity. The idea is to prevent rogue investigators unlawfully infringing on the privacy of individuals.

Workplace investigations are luckily not dogged by such rogue individuals but it does sometimes feel as though organisations do not put a high priority on supporting and quality assuring their investigators in what is a complex, risky role.

I’ve recently distilled People Resolutions’ vast experience of workplace investigation into the FAIRER model and I hope this will help those of you who are assigned to investigating workplace grievances, disciplinaries, bullying and harassment allegations and other matters.

This is how it works. First the FAIRER acronym captures the spirit of the central value of effective workplace investigation. Investigators need to be demonstrably fair – recognised as fair by a range of stakeholders, parties and their representatives in their management and recording of the process, in their verbal exchanges, treatment and respect of the parties, and in any written material they process or produce.

Fairness isn’t just in the head or heart. It involves preparation, following designated structures and principles and rigorous attention to detail. Policies give some guidance on process and many organisations do have maps, templates and model documents to help investigators act consistently across a range of situations with a range of stressed, demanding parties often with polarised perceptions.

The structure of thinking and working provided by the FAIRER model supplements and dovetails well with workplace policies and procedures.  

F- Find out – what is to be investigated and agree the terms of reference (investigation plan), what are the issues and allegations, what is the evidence, what happened and what can help understand and assess what happened

A– Analyse – apply objective, impartial, rational consideration to reflect and begin to structure what you have and begin to weigh it up against the allegations

I – bring Insight – consider the weight, type of evidence, levels of proof required, utilise external guidance, definitions, seek more information and clarification if required

R- Report – pull together evidence, conclusions, findings* in a detailed, structured report according to policy requirements and the terms of reference

E – Evaluate - explain and get feedback on the report and findings / recommendations with key parties, check in with commissioning person for feedback as appropriate

R - Reflect on learning emerging from the investigation and disseminate as appropriate.

John Crawley

*If Required