INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#216 GddZ
The German Corporate Governance Code
Does the German Corporate Governance Code provide a field of application for mediation – or even recommend it?
In conversation with Dr Daniela Rindone
Dr Daniela Rindone, Lawyer and mediator at CMS Germany in Cologne, labour law, where she works as Counsel and Co-Head of the CMS New Work Competence Cluster. She advises national and international clients on all aspects of individual and collective labour law. One focus of her work is the introduction of modern forms of work and advising companies in particular on the topics of mobile working, home office and employee management in remote forms of work.
Dr Rindone was a lawyer at CMS from 2013 to 2016 and then moved to the position of in-house lawyer in the central employment law department of a multinational company and major automotive supplier. She returned to CMS in 2018 and has been Counsel at the firm since 2022. In addition to her legal practice, Daniela Rindone works as a mediator specialising in commercial mediation.
Contributions from the conflict dynamics
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Contents
Chapter:
0:10 – Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit
3:01 Mediation in labour law
8:21 The Governance Code
16:09 Significance of the Corporate Governance Code
21:14 Stakeholders in corporate governance
25:39 Trustful cooperation and mediation
28:22 Mediation in a business context
42:56 Mediation and Corporate Governance Codex
43:48 Farewell and outlook on future topics
Summary of content
In this episode, we shed light on the Role of mediation in the context of the Corporate Governance Codea Rules for good corporate governance. I am delighted to welcome Dr Daniele Rindone, an experienced lawyer with a focus on employment law and mediation training, as a discussion partner. Our discussion will begin with an introduction to the Fundamental issues of mediation and how they relate to the Principles of trusting cooperation in professional life can be connected.
Dr Rindone explains how her professional career has led her to work both in her role as a legal advisor and as a mediator. Through her experience, she has developed a deep understanding of the dynamics of conflict on both an individual and organisational level. We will discuss how mediation can act not only as a conflict resolution process, but also as a catalyst for better collaboration and innovative solutions within organisations.
Things get particularly interesting when we take a closer look at the Corporate Governance Code. Dr Rindone explains that the Code formulates fundamental principles for corporate governance that promote open and trusting communication between the responsible bodies should. Here we see the Connection to mediationas it makes it possible to unite different perspectives in conflict situations and find viable solutions for all parties involved. The gateway for this interpretation is the Legal term „trustful cooperation“.
We delve into the practical differences between the role of a mediator and that of a legal adviser. Dr Rindone highlights the importance of stepping back and being neutral in a mediator role to give the parties in conflict space to negotiate for themselves. She shares her insights on how key stakeholders such as supervisory boards or management boards can be persuaded to consider mediation as a useful conflict resolution method, especially when conflicts are stagnating or tending to escalate.
We also look at the challenges of mediation in highly professional and complex corporate contexts and discuss how the Corporate Governance Code can promote a positive attitude towards mediative approaches. Dr Rindone argues that the Code can strengthen trust between boards, which has a positive long-term impact on corporate governance.
Overall, this episode offers deeper insights into the valuable synergies between mediation and corporate governance, and we invite listeners to reflect on these perspectives in their own professional contexts. Dr Rindone concludes with the conviction that mediation should be given more attention, not only as a technical process, but also as a necessary component of a proactive conflict culture in companies.
CONTEXT of the CODEX
KODEX. The German Corporate Governance Code sets out key statutory regulations for the management and supervision of German listed companies and contains internationally and nationally recognised standards of good and responsible corporate governance in the form of recommendations and suggestions.
COMMISSION. The Government Commission on the German Corporate Governance Code formulates these recommendations and suggestions and reviews them annually to determine whether they continue to correspond to best practice in good corporate governance or whether they need to be adapted.
COMMISSION IN DIALOGUE. As the Code is an expression of the business community's commitment to good corporate governance, the review takes place not only within the Commission, but also in dialogue with companies and their stakeholders, politicians and the public. The public consultation process, personal discussions and other dialogue formats are forums that ensure this involvement.
OBJECTIVES: The GCGC is intended to help make the rules for corporate management and supervision applicable in Germany comprehensible and transparent for both national and international investors. This is intended to strengthen confidence in the corporate governance of German companies and thus in the German capital market. The Code takes into account the points of criticism levelled at the German corporate constitution in the past - particularly by foreign investors - including inadequate alignment with shareholder interests, a lack of transparency in corporate governance and a lack of professionalism, diversity and independence on supervisory boards. The aim is also to harmonise and standardise the measures that are part of good corporate governance.
Furthermore, the Code aims to provide German companies with rules and values for good and responsible corporate governance. Above all, this means that companies should endeavour to achieve their corporate goals in a way that serves the company itself as well as the affected interest groups such as owners, lenders, customers and suppliers, society and citizens from a long-term perspective.
At the same time, the Code aims to provide investors and shareholders with a catalogue of criteria for assessing good corporate governance.
Complete transcription
[0:00]Everyone probably understands it differently, but this is a starting point for saying that mediation, i.e. the mediation process, can be a form of trust-based cooperation.
[0:10]
Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit
[0:11]Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting. A podcast from INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. And today it's all about mediation. So we want to get to mediation and our starting point is a code for corporate governance, in other words, for good corporate management. And what this has to do with mediation is best explained by my interviewee today, Dr Daniele Rindone.
Hello Dr Rindone. Hello Mr Weigel, nice to be here. Before we get into the content of this code and mediation, perhaps a few words about you and why you are allowed to deal with this topic. You are a lawyer. What is your core specialism? Where do you work and what do you do with mediation there?
[1:16]So maybe first of all, where do I come from? Exactly, I am a lawyer and work in the field of labour law, advising companies on all matters relating to labour law. And in this context, of course, like other colleagues in the legal field, I often have to deal with disputes, disagreements and conflicts. Between employers and employees, of course, but also between employers and works councils. So this is a very good and very large field. Mediation as such, as a process, as a way of dealing with conflicts, has actually been on my radar for a very long time. I've been interested in it for a long time. I've always tried to follow it a bit alongside my work as a lawyer and see what's happening and developing in this area. And then, almost two years ago, I decided that I didn't just want to look at it from the outside, but would also like to be more involved and simply get to grips with this process more and then trained as a mediator, so to speak, and since then I have become even more addicted to this topic.
[2:36]Expire. In other words, a few "aha" effects, so to speak, in dealing with conflicts, which are obvious in works councils, management, i.e. workplace conflicts, but also in collective labour law, where they are actually also good exercises when we think of conciliation bodies.
[2:53]After all, things should be amicable there and solutions should be found. In this respect, it probably wasn't all that new.
[3:01]
Mediation in labour law
[3:02]That is true. There are a lot of parallels. You also have a lot to do with dealing with these problems and disputes in your day-to-day work. But of course in a very one-sided way. So of course I'm there to advise the employer and try to help resolve the conflict or the problem at hand. But of course I also act as an adviser to my client. It's a slightly different situation with regard to the conciliation committee, but also mediation, where someone is basically sitting at the front and leading, structuring and conducting the proceedings. But you are absolutely right, you are of course familiar with this procedure or with the attempt to bring the parties closer together. In other words, you have experience both as a legal adviser in conciliation proceedings and in mediation and can perhaps share a few more experiences with us from this perspective. So I'll put the governance code to one side, but only a little bit. I find that very interesting, even from this professional observer position.
[4:21]Who keeps an eye on the client's rights, so to speak, but also observes the dynamics in mediation or perhaps similarly in the conciliation committee. Were these your first points of contact with mediation, so to speak?
[4:37]Yes, in the context of conciliation committee proceedings. But I think we now also have this predominantly in court proceedings. Of course, a judge sits there to decide the dispute. But even there, as we know from the conciliation hearing, but also beyond that, we always endeavour to see if we can't somehow get the parties together at the table and reach a solution. In all these proceedings, whether it's the conciliation committee, whether it's the court dispute or whether it's simply advising the client in the run-up to such proceedings, how can we get the cow off the ice, the question always plays a role, are there options for solutions, as will be the case with mediation or is it possible.
[5:22]And what can I give as a party or what am I prepared to give as a party in order to perhaps get something that is important to me on the other side? These aspects, which are very much to the fore in mediation, what is at stake, what is actually important to each party, can we then achieve a good balance for both sides? That's something that accompanies me every day and also keeps me busy, because you always endeavour to find a solution somehow. But sometimes it just doesn't work and you can't really get to the heart of the matter. What are the most important differences that you perhaps experience in the different roles? As a legal counsellor, for example, because I don't have that at all. I've never been involved in mediation as a legal adviser, as a mediator, so to speak.
[6:16]But I also imagine that it's special to watch from this position, where you naturally tend to have your own client in mind. But, as my colleague here said, you also have to make sure that they don't do anything stupid. It's not just the person you're protecting, you also have to protect them from themselves sometimes. You don't have to feel that you are addressing your clients and neither do they. But what differences do you find striking in these different roles? Well, when I'm a legal advisor or wear the hat of a legal advisor, my primary concern is to achieve a good result for the client. And the result should be the way he imagines it, the way we discussed it. Of course, this can also change during the course of the negotiations. But you are there to protect and enforce the client's interests, if that is possible. And of course you take on a single role, namely that of the client in this context. In the case of mediation, that is, when you deal with the parties as a mediator.
[7:26]Of course, it's also about the interests of the respective parties. But I'm not an advisor to one side or the other - I'm not allowed to be - I try to understand. I try, but first and foremost at least that is my approach, to really create understanding and to mediate, so I can also take a step back to a certain extent. So in the mediation process, it's actually the parties' process, they should try to get closer to each other again or find a solution to what's bothering them or what's stuck between them. And I actually find it very pleasant that you can take a step back, but of course it's also always a challenge to step out of this role of the counsellor, which is somewhere interwoven with a party, and to take a very
[8:21]
The Governance Code
[8:18]open view of the process.
[8:22]Last question, then we'll move on to the code. When teaching law students, but also when training non-professional lawyers, but quite normal people with experience of disputes in mediation, it is always difficult to put your own solution machinery and your own idea of justice and what should be at the back, so to speak. And in mediation, it's not just a matter of training them to do so, but disciplining them. That's a big task. And for you, if I could categorise that correctly.
[8:56]You were a trained lawyer, an experienced solicitor and are now training as a mediator. How did you experience this change of role, being trained, calibrated and practised as a mediator to routinely think in terms of justice and also to be creative in this, but to gain an overview of what is just? I mean, even in law, justice is not always just. It's a term that needs to be interpreted. Yes, exactly. If you explain it to someone who isn't involved, it's often difficult to explain. When conducting a mediation or in the mediation process itself, this is always a challenge for you and especially for me now in my role as the actual lawyer, if you like, or as the original lawyer, to take a step back. And as a legal advisor, you often have a tendency to make suggestions, to take ideas a step further or modify them and to always bring in suggestions with a strong impetus. And can't we do it this way, can't we do it differently?
[10:08]That is something that, perhaps from my perspective, should also be fair for both parties. And that is something where you always have to step back and say that I don't decide what is fair here, but that the parties should decide what is a good and fair solution for them in the end. And on the face of it, I might say that I would never do that. But this process is not about me and my view of things, to a certain extent of course, but in the end it's the parties' view that counts. And that is a challenge to say or to recognise again and again, when do you actually slip back into this advisory role? You can't switch it off, I don't want to, that's what makes me a mediator. But of course you have to make sure that it doesn't drift too much into counselling both parties, where you are perhaps too active, which is also the difference from my point of view to the conciliation committee, as I always experience it. There's a lot more activity at the head of the table, of course. And that's the challenge in mediation, to endure the fact that you perhaps shouldn't do that at the moment or at least simply give the parties more space. That's a good comparison. This third person in the conciliation committee is also a neutral person, doesn't sit on one side, but generally acts differently than now.
[11:34]Let me put it this way, from a third party trained in traditional mediation. It is often retired judges who then take on this mandate.
[11:46]Yes, although I think we are also seeing more and more of this, including in the area of labour law, there are excellent conciliation boards, chairpersons and presiding judges who don't actually do this so late in the day, but really say that it's something I'm totally passionate about and I focus on it and really put all my energy into it. I said that in a casual way, the retired judges. Yes, that's what people think women have. That's no longer the case. And it's not actually a requirement that it has to be a lawyer. It could be anyone else. As a rule, I would say from my prejudiced perspective, they are lawyers. Yes, yes, absolutely. Precisely because they also help to shape things, to a certain extent. And because at the end of the day in the conciliation committee, the parties sit there and say, how should we do it now? What proposal do they have? That is also inherent in the procedure, that there are proposals from the chairman. So it doesn't work without this kind of background.
[12:45]Okay, we'll leave that. I have ten other questions, but I think the other topic that originally brought us together is just as interesting. You wrote an article about it in the specialist journal Konfliktdynamik, and it was a very informative, I would say, basic article, which also first considered this topic and hopefully opened up a discussion to a certain extent. I immediately noticed this and thought that I would have to call Mrs Rindone straight away and ask her to do another podcast on the subject. It's about the Corporate Governance Codex. I think I said the index earlier, so something with X. Good corporate governance has now been written down. And if you can first briefly categorise what this is about, who has written what and for whom, and what problem it is intended to solve, then we can then move on from there to mediation. With pleasure.
[13:45]The Corporate Governance Code, or the German Corporate Governance Code, is a set of rules, if you like, that has been developed by a commission and is constantly being reviewed and adapted. It is basically a compilation or compilation of several principles which, as the Commission sees it, help to ensure that a company is well managed. It is not normative law, i.e. it is not statutory law, such as the German Civil Code or similar. It is therefore not possible to say directly that there are standards and regulations from which I can derive claims or obligations. However, the German Corporate Governance Code is, if you like, a private code of its own and creates a framework for regulations that are relevant for companies in order to say what we actually have to do and what we also have to observe in order to manage companies well and for the good of the company.
[14:53]Hey, you who are listening to this podcast, if you like it, why don't you press five stars and leave feedback so that others who haven't listened to or found the podcast yet can do so. And now we continue with the episode in the podcast gut durch die Zeit.
[15:13]Perhaps that means, first of all, which commission, i.e. who has it there, so to speak.
[15:18]This text was „ drafted“ and commissioned so that it also has a certain binding force or authority, so that people say, yes, it makes sense for us to adhere to it. Yes, there is an official commission. Very different people are involved in this commission and from very different areas, so that different perspectives are simply represented. That's how we started to draw up this set of rules and put them out into the world. But you shouldn't take this to mean that this set of rules was laid down once and will now exist forever; instead, this code is reviewed annually. And it is reviewed again and again, also on the basis of changes in the economy and practical experience.
[16:09]
Significance of the Corporate Governance Code
[16:07]Does what we actually wrote there fit?
[16:09]Do we need to adapt it? Is it still up to date? Do we perhaps also need to concretise it? And it is basically structured in such a way that this code standardises various recommendations, but also tasks. Of course, these are usually formulated relatively broadly, because it is not possible to put them in writing in such concrete terms for all the different corporate constellations, so that they are usually very general and broadly formulated regulations, which then serve to simply derive certain actions. And who can now feel addressed, so to speak? So is it all companies?
[16:49]I have a law firm. Am I the addressee? Can I comply with them? Or are these regulations that apply to me now or to smaller companies?
[17:00]freelancers or such would not apply at all or would not fit at all because, in my opinion, stock corporations and groups are more likely to be addressed? Yes, that's how it is. Ultimately, it is basically a set of regulations aimed at listed companies. This can also be deduced from the German Stock Corporation Act. There is a standard there, a paragraph that also refers to this German Corporate Governance Codex and obliges listed companies, but also companies that are treated as such, to disclose. That used to be different. Back then, there was no obligation to disclose whether a company was complying with the recommendations and advice of the Code or whether it was deviating from them and why. As a result, the Code is still not really a law. However, this link in the Stock Corporation Act with regard to the companies standardised there has of course given it a different significance simply for the companies addressed there. No corresponding obligation can be derived from this for all other companies, i.e. unlisted and unlisted companies that are treated as such. But of course such companies are not prevented from saying.
[18:13]However, we also want to try to do justice to the German Corporate Governance Code or at least use it as a basis for perhaps deriving certain maxims for our actions from it. So it is not at all unusual for companies to look at this code and see what is happening in this area. Maybe one more point and then we look over to mediation or see how far away it is so that we can build a bridge. But you also said before us that this is for good corporate governance, so to speak, in the interests of the company. And I know this from conversations or work assignments, for example, with industrial companies or works councils and so on. They say, yes, a company is there for the people. And of course they mean the employees. And when I say that, of course, I'm referring to the fact that a company also has shareholders. They are usually not taken into account when someone says, as an employee, that the company and the organisation are there for people.
[19:11]Which groups, which stakeholders in the new German are included in good corporate governance? And how can you tell if the company has been managed well? Who benefits and who perhaps sits at the longer end of the table? In an ideal world, everyone should have something to gain. But I would say… where is that? Yes, exactly. That's a good question. There are of course many interest groups that are linked to a company. You mentioned it. These are the employees. That's the workforce. These are all those who contribute to the day-to-day running of the company. But it's also the management. It's also the Management Board or the Supervisory Board, depending on how the company is structured. In other words, those who have to make decisions at the top, of course, so that the company can be managed in the interests of everyone and so that it can simply be managed well and be successful. And then, of course, there are also, again separately, the owners, if you like, i.e. the shareholders who have a stake in the company, for example, the partners, who in turn have their own interests or their own ideas about how a company should actually be managed well. And then, perhaps a little outside this narrow circle of companies, we also have the external persons, i.e. customers.
[20:32]Suppliers who, of course, also have an interest in the company doing well, but also that their interests are safeguarded to some extent. It is a very colourful bouquet of groups and interests that come together in a company. And these are also named in the code, so to speak. So I wasn't surprised, but that's quite a demanding, quite a challenge for such a set of rules, abstractly detached, to bring these very different groups of people into one.
[21:14]
Stakeholders in corporate governance
[21:09]balance, which is then labelled as good corporate governance. These are actually the conflict groups. Yes, absolutely.
[21:18]Yes, that is the core of the people or groups of people who can contribute to something working really well, but can also contribute to something developing in the completely wrong direction. And that's also the difficulty, of course, with the complexity of the structures involved or that underlies the whole thing, of striking a good balance. I also thought of the group of neighbours or people who may be affected by the company's production methods and business practices, who, apart from consumers and customers, have nothing else to do with it, but who naturally have an interest in ensuring that it is environmentally friendly or at least does not have a negative impact on the neighbours of a production facility, for example. And if I now take all these people together, so to speak, and say that the company is well managed if it is done right for each of these different groups in inverted commas, then I don't think I need to look so far away from the term mediation. So that's already one of the ideas, so to speak. Yes, absolutely. I think it's so obvious, precisely because…
[22:36]Of course, we have very different ways of dealing with these conflict groups, to put it simply. So mediation doesn't always help or doesn't always have to. But precisely because there are people and structures that somehow have to get along well with each other in the long term, or that should act sensibly with each other, so that a company is well positioned in the long term. That's not always the case and sometimes there's a bad image, but as a rule that's the goal, that things run well. From my point of view, you need means and ways that are not just selective.
[23:13]Because there is environmental damage or pollution or, I don't know, bonus rounds have not gone well or there are other concerns, you don't always just need a one-off solution. That is important in many matters. It is also important that justice is done and that the law is applied. But that was also my intention with this article. It is not the only way to deal with conflicts, nor is it the only correct way to deal with conflicts. So what does mediation have to do with this Governance Codex on a practical level, on an application level, so to speak? It does not directly mention mediation as such, unless I have missed it. No, that's right. But you have explained this in the essay, which I can recommend to everyone.
[24:07]It plays a role there. What makes you think that? Well, you're absolutely right. Mediation is not something that is explicitly mentioned in the Code or even, yes, the term does not appear there. Full stop. It's not in the Code. But the Code does formulate principles. And one of these principles is Principle 13, which is addressed to the Management Board and the Supervisory Board, i.e. to the bodies in the company that make decisions and are responsible for the management on the one hand, but on the other hand also, that is the Supervisory Board, a kind of control, so not just a kind, it is a control function that is performed to see whether things are going properly at the management level, whether we need to intervene somehow. And Principle 13 of the Code is aimed at these two bodies and states that they should work together in a spirit of trust and that certain rules of the game are part and parcel of working together in a spirit of trust. In other words, that we are transparent, that we can also act confidentially with each other and that we should not only talk to each other between the bodies, but also endeavour to create a good information situation within the body.
[25:20]And in my view, this is the decisive starting point when you ask yourself how mediation and the Corporate Governance Codex actually come together, to say, exactly there, namely with such open, we always call these open or interpretable legal terms among us lawyers, that you say, yes what,
[25:39]
Trusting cooperation and mediation
[25:36]I mean, trust-based cooperation is something different for everyone. Everyone probably understands it differently, but that is a starting point to say that mediation, i.e. the mediation process, can be a type of trusting cooperation. And as far as I'm still in the legal loop, the term is already well defined. So it's a legal term, trusting cooperation. I think we are familiar with it from labour law in the cooperation between the social partners.
[26:05]And it was immediately clear to me that, yes, mediation is actually involved here, because the trusting cooperation in the social partnership in labour law leads to the dismissal body as a planned legal procedure, but there a procedure comes about with a co-creative step that does not occur in mediation and that I cannot imagine in the constellation you have named here, the Supervisory Board and the Management Board. And then there has to be a third party who is less able to shape things. Hence the mediation. What practical experience do you have of this? or if you look at the practice that you know, that you observe, even in such companies, is it conceivable that supervisory boards and management boards, mediators in such cases.
[26:57]Where some things have already been discussed, where things are already deadlocked perhaps or where opinions are more strongly opposed to each other, that an uninvolved person is then called in? Yes, definitely. So the cases do exist. It's not just a historical narrative, so there are cases. There could be more cases. Overall, from my point of view, there is still a lot of room for improvement in Germany to say that we should give mediation a completely different status than it currently has. In my view, it's currently preloaded with ideas or thoughts that people have about it that aren't actually true. That will be the next podcast.
[27:43]That will be the next podcast. The listeners haven't seen it now, but the view has revealed a lot of experience. I'm interested in that. Yes, I think we can do a lot more and simply present mediation differently. Just a moment, I just want to check that I'm not slipping into false fantasies. You don't necessarily mean the regulation of mediation is too weak and the legal support, but rather the image that mediators and mediation associations produce for mediation.
[28:22]
Mediation in a business context
[28:17]Yes, I think that the use of mediation is still far too low. But I believe that there is a lot of potential in it. I believe that many people associate mediation with something that often gives the impression or the thought that it's useless. What's the point? It's a waste of time. And I think we should publicise it more the other way round, because mediation doesn't mean sitting around a table somewhere for months, drinking coffee and trying to find a solution somehow. Mediation, especially in a business context, is sometimes a very tight daily mediation process, for example. They can go on for several days, but they're a way of quickly seeing, in a relatively focussed way, whether there's room for some kind of solution or not. And we can do that.
[29:10]Let's create the space. Yes, exactly. So I'm convinced that you can simply do a lot more and that this procedure as such is not recognised as such in our country. Well, it sounds like the parties to the conflict can do more and risk more. I also liked hearing that we mediators could make it a bit clearer and also stand up for it or position ourselves accordingly, so to speak, that this is a tightly managed negotiation aid that is appropriate to the client and context. Yes, that's true. I mean, you can also see that at these association levels. There is also an attempt at mediation.
[29:58]To give them a status or to advertise them. But I don't believe that this will go down well everywhere and that the business community will realise this enough. If you want to give more weight to the mediation process, I think that means adapting it at different levels. In my view, the mediators would have to act differently or perhaps market it and publicise it. That's why I think opportunities like this one or publications are really important, to show that this is a super or can be a super effective tool. But that's not the only thing that needs to be done. So of course, the organisations should do more, but those who can make use of it in the end should perhaps be a little more open to the whole thing. But of course they can only do that if they know that the procedure exists. The procedure doesn't just exist because the grandfather is somehow arguing with his grandchildren about the inheritance or wants to have it settled, but can also be very complex economic matters that can be resolved with mediation. Okay, we'll come back to this in more detail later in another podcast. I would like to reiterate mediation, which can be read into this code, so to speak, and also appears to be a recommended procedure.
[31:18]I would like to explain once again the interaction with the other procedures or procedures that have been practised, which I can only imagine now. Because if I imagine…
[31:30]Large corporations, listed companies, companies quoted on the stock exchange, these are all players who are experienced in making difficult decisions and dealing with complex interests. That doesn't mean that they are all reflected, professionalised and always make the right decision, but they are all players for whom it doesn't happen out of the blue, oh, now I'm in a deadlocked conflict, but a lot happens. What makes you think that there is room for mediation that the parties haven't already recognised, that they can approach third parties, mediators, negotiators, negotiation aids and that the Code brings something new to the table? So what does the Code change through its existence or is it simply a declaration of what is already there?
[32:26]Hey, you, mediator, coach, if you are interested in further content on mediation, coaching or organisational consulting, then take a look at our website. We offer seminars, in-depth training courses and other formats where you can find out more. We have a newsletter and we address the issue of new technologies that may be possible for this work in our AI Compass. So if you're interested, sign up there and let us know. We would be delighted. And now we continue with the podcast.
[33:09]I believe that the code can serve to say, well, the code also aims to ensure that you act together and not just everyone does something and pushes through their views, but the code also aims to ensure that you act together in an appropriate manner on an equal footing. And that happens over time and, as you rightly said, these people are experienced, they are successful managers, so they have seen enough in their professional lives, they certainly don't need to be told how a company works and what decisions they might have to make, what effects that has. But of course, over time, certain forms of behaviour become ingrained in the way you act in your professional life. Managers or even company bodies change more and more quickly in terms of personnel and this always means that you have to get along with other people, that you have to get to know other people again and trust them.
[34:12]And of course these are people who naturally have a completely different level of self-confidence and act very differently than when it comes to mediation in a family context, for example. The point where you can win these people over to your side or to the process is always to say, from my point of view, that these are not just snapshots and this is not just something where you might get stuck in one place. It also affects the entire further cooperation. Especially in corporate or internal company structures and at such decision-making levels, it's also something you have to get along with every day. And above all, you have to get along with each other in such a way that, and this is where the Code comes in again, you act in the interests and for the good of the company. And if more and more people join the company over time, or even in the short term, because people are new and you can't really smell them right from the start or somehow don't get along with them.
[35:12]Then there is a danger that the actual decision will simply be overlaid by other patterns, other intentions, which ultimately may not have much effect or at least no longer prioritise the good of the company. In my view, this is the key to saying that not every conflict is suitable for mediation. But there are enough situations where you can say, give it a try. And these are clever people, they will know relatively quickly whether this will work or not. And I think it's simply worth a try. I also don't think you have to say that mediation is only ever successful if you come to an agreement at the end or have reached some kind of understanding. Mediation can also be successful if you realise that we're right, that things are so far apart, that no amount of talking will help, that we can't solve this on our own.
[36:08]Yes, but there is simply clarity and a next step with a different level of clarity and then you perhaps regret less, but know that we tried it. That's often a prejudice that mediation encounters, that it's something very emotional. Yes, of course, it's also about interests and needs, which is inherent in the process. But in such highly professional areas, certain feelings, certain impressions cannot simply be pushed aside. And here too, no matter how professional someone is and how long they have been in the business, they always play a role to some extent. And I am convinced that mediation provides a completely different starting point to give these points a bit of space. I think the greatest value in this context, but this is a purely subjective classification, is that people who are carrying highly responsible conflicts can seek out a dialogue space not only for themselves, but in this case also for many people, where they can address unauthorised thoughts again in a relatively harmless way. And with the person with whom they can only exchange these thoughts, namely a conflict partner, they can check again whether something can be done that cannot be done so easily in front of their own community. This is a classic situation that is actually familiar from labour law, including from the works council and management.
[37:33]That there is not only a difficulty between these two representatives or representative bodies, but many also have to act in a face-saving manner towards their own clientele and the background person. And mediation is another opportunity to at least really address a different approach. To be able to explain yourself again. You're absolutely right that you simply have to do it again.
[37:59]Perhaps you can explain this to the other side in a different way and in this way again create understanding, perhaps to find a solution of some kind. I'm going to take a look at the situation where the key people who have really got themselves into a mess appear to be quite unreceptive to others, to whom you're not so good at writing essays and to whom you can't present the conflict dynamics and say, look here, maybe you'll get another idea for the next step. In your experience, who should you approach? Who needs to raise the flag, so to speak, and say, here's another way forward in a constellation like this, because this person has the greatest influence? So how do you get into mediation in a conflict like this, where mediation is not pre-structured, where it is now an idea to call it on an ad hoc basis? Sometimes it is necessary to ask a third or other person and put this flow in their ear. There is another variant. Of course, this can come from within the organisation itself. The board, for example, doesn't have to consist of just one person and if there are several people on the board, there doesn't always have to be a direct conflict with all of them. So board members have different topics for which they are responsible. It may well be that there is a problem in one area, but not in another, and then the impetus can be given within the body.
[39:25]Think about whether this might be an option. The same applies to the supervisory body. Here, too, it is not a committee consisting of just one person. So impulses can also be given there.
[39:37]However, they are often a bit reserved. But it can also be done via the legal advisors, who say, "Gee, maybe it's worthwhile to meet again in a different way than taking the dispute directly to court. This is often one way of approaching these proceedings, but we are also seeing more and more, albeit still very cautiously, that companies are imposing a kind of roadmap on themselves or setting out how certain conflicts in the company can be tackled, for example. In other words, it's like a charter that exists within the company. And that can of course also be an opportunity to say, look, we've written down the idea ourselves here, for which conflicts, which possibilities can be considered. Remind yourself of that again. Maybe that's an option. Yes, so these conflict management policies have the value that you just have to point to them. Yes, like a policy that says this is actually the line of approach that we have imposed on ourselves. And of course it doesn't just apply to others, but strictly speaking to everyone. For us.
[40:51]Exactly, we are part of everyone, so for us too. Also for us. Exactly. Okay, you're the expert in this area. What else have we left out on this point? What else is important? What else is important to you in this matter? Yes, I think, so that it doesn't come across the wrong way, perhaps, as I also tried to explain a little in the article, this Corporate Governance Codex is not a code or, with its Principle 13, not a construct that says you have to go into mediation now, you have to carry it out and that is the method of choice.
[41:21]But the Code can encourage people to consider mediation. And if you… follow this view or assume, as I believe, that this is reflected in the wording, then I can perhaps address three points that are linked to this. Firstly, I believe that this suggestion, or rather, this is not a suggestion, it is a duty, to a certain extent, to the Management Board and Supervisory Board to act together in full co-operation and trust, that we must say that this is not just something that is said.
[41:52]Yes good, then disturb we us stop not mutually, but the is a little more, Namely more so one active Compulsory also to watch, what Helps because us, at really trusting with each other act to can. And there can it in one first Point already in addition lead, that one says, we beat the Mediation even times before. We leave us on this Procedure in. The second Point, the itself from this Principle 13 in Combination with the Mediation derive leaves, is from mine Visibility, that one as Board of Directors, but also as Supervisory Board or other Committee in the Company, when one itself on this Procedure gets involved, a Piece wide also, yes, I wants not say in addition obliged sees, but stopped sees, this Procedure also seriously one Opportunity to give. What not means, that one on the Procedure convulsive hold on must, until one on End to any Decision comes. The goes Yes also even not. So the Mediation characterises itself natural as one the uppermost Principles through Voluntariness from. But that one already from this Corporate Governance Thoughts discharging Yes itself
[42:56]
Mediation and Corporate Governance Codex
[42:52]so one something higher Hurdle perhaps installs and says, I break the now not simple so from. The third Point, the me perhaps still Important would be on the Place is, to be noted, the had we Yes at the beginning also short touched on, Mediation is.
[43:05]On End a Profit. It is none Loss or none Waste from Time and also already even not one Waste from Money. It is always something, what deposits, be it in the Realisation, we come so actually whole good ahead with this Procedure, with the Mediation. The Helps us in fact. Or even with the Determination, we have it tasted. The has also again a little therein paid in, that we us Respect as different Organs and Decision maker in the Company, but it is not the suitable Procedure for ours current Conflict. And the are so three Points, the have I tried, in the Contribution times to take up. I believe, the is whole Important in this Context.
[43:48]
Farewell and outlook for future topics
[43:45]Codex on the one hand and Mediation on the other hand. Many Thanks to, Mrs Rindone, for the Conversation. Has me large Fun made. Yes, many Thanks to also. Good Time and until soon then, when we about the Marketing or the Potentials from Mediation presentation again speak. Yes, always with pleasure. I stand there with pleasure to the available.
[44:06]Dr. Daniela Rindone has in the Conflict dynamics 424, so the last Issue from the last Year, to the Corporate Governance Codex and the trusting Co-operation through Mediation written. Has so the Codex taken up, the enact was, the German Corporate Governance Codex and is the Question followed up.
[44:30]Whether and to what extent Mediation there to take up is and as Procedure in Question comes with Conflicts in the Context good Corporate management. We are here also the Question followed up, what Mediation in Workplace conflicts as also generally still for Potentials have could, that there more both retrieved becomes from Mediation, the is Yes the old Question, always from Mediators also already, as but also from Mediators yet, from Mediator page possible is, here one other Performance to lay down, a other Image to strive for. And even also in such Contexts highly professional, more experienced in conflict Company management also then retrieved to become.
[45:19]Many Thanks to, that you here thereby was at the Podcast Good through the Time. When you this Podcast still not subscribed have, then get the but equal to. Then have you each Consequence brand new on yours Podcast-Catcher. And say also Notification yours Friends and Colleagues, that here podcasted becomes to Conflict management, Mediation and Organisational consulting. In the Moment thank you I me. I say goodbye me with the best Wishes. Until to the next Times. Comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflict and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training.
Leave A Comment