Mediation in organisations.

An interview with Dr Sascha Weigel on the work of mediators in and for organisations.

The – abridged – interview was conducted by Sarah Lipot in December 2018.

How did you find your way to mediation?

I have already attended seminars for my own further training alongside my studies and during my traineeship. There I came into contact with counselling processes that placed more emphasis on process counselling than on specialist counselling – where the counsellor knows more, knows the subject better. Whereas process counselling is more about discussing with the person receiving counselling how they approach the problem. Accordingly, the seminars dealt with forms of counselling such as coaching, systemic counselling and transactional analysis. This is where I came into contact with this form of counselling for conflict resolution and recognised it as a useful way of tackling potential conflicts – alongside legal advice in the legal system. Later - after my studies and after my legal clerkship - I decided to deepen my knowledge of precisely this as part of my dissertation.

Conflict is not the problem; rather, these potential conflicts are often economic drivers and sources of economic innovation.

Why do organisations need mediation? What are typical conflicts that can be resolved in mediation?

The classic way is for people to try to negotiate the potential for conflict that simply exists when they work together. This works to a certain extent. However, if this fails and the parties are deadlocked, the traditional way is to consult the boss or the legal department. This then either goes via the line manager or directly to the legal department, HR department or court - in other words, the legal system is used. The question is then: Who is – right with their position? How are the conflicting positions to be decided in view of the legal system? Regardless of whether the lawyer answers this or the superior decides in favour of labour law measures or the judge as the third party in court. This mode is inadequate for the problems that increasingly want to be solved. Conflict is not the problem; rather, these potential conflicts are often economic drivers and sources of economic innovation. And this is what companies should be interested in - not driving the innovation out of the company, but rather analysing the conflict as a result.

There is classic potential for conflict between production and sales or marketing, for example. They always argue, regardless of the sector. This conflict can be found in every organisation. However, it has nothing to do with the people or, more precisely, the personalities. Both parties are interested in the company being successful. However, this cannot be promoted with legal measures, with legal systems of understanding. This requires a space for discussion where the positive aspects are emphasised and the critical aspects are well moderated. Mediation can provide this framework.

If I understand you correctly, you emphasise the innovative moments in the conflict that should be used to ensure that innovation remains possible in the company?

Yes, I am emphasising less - if that is what you mean – emotion-related or people-related mediation approaches. Classical mediation has the understanding that the emotional aspects and the interests of the parties behind the positions must be emphasised. And emotions are often seen as the key to conflict resolution. People are so heated and blocked - e.g. full of anger or resentment - that this prevents them from utilising all their options in the conflict to proceed intelligently. This hinders conflict resolution. This is a very individualised approach. This is also how mediation is classically understood. But in organisations, the interests of the organisation still come into play, which is an economic aspect. These are very dominant framework conditions, just as the law is also a framework condition. That is why it is in the foreground. This is why mediation in organisations is less a personal event and more an organisational event. The organisation appears as a separate subject in mediation.

In other words, mediation in organisations tends to emphasise roles and subsystems and how they relate to each other, as in the example of sales and production?

Exactly. They have been deliberately differentiated in organisations in order to do better business. The fact that there is a sales and a production organisation is not mandatory, but the result of human decisions. It is important to utilise the tensions that exist and not to impose the costs on anyone. Of course, an organisation is not interested in treating its employees badly and demotivating them. However, this does not mean that mediation is there for the employees; that is a side or additional effect. In my understanding, organisational mediation is an organisational event. First and foremost, it should help the organisation.

But when it comes to conflicts within a team, for example, would you also take care of that as a mediator for organisations, or would you draw a clear line and say that someone else is now responsible?

It may also be that the conflict is personal. For example, that people harbour certain antipathies for each other and become entangled in their psychodynamics. We know this from psychological processes. The fact that people bring their family history into the workplace, e.g. always recognising their father in their boss, or that their sibling's story keeps coming back to life through their colleagues, can also be present and must be dealt with, but this is then primarily dealt with from the perspective of the organisation. It is not worth doing psychotherapy in organisational mediation. Although one result of mediation can be that psychotherapy is recommended. To do this, the mediator must know his or her limits and not try to somehow solve or treat the problem within the framework of mediation. That's not possible, and all mediators know that.

How can you imagine mediation in organisations? In terms of the client, the process, the participants, the time frame?

This is also where Very practical differences (to other mediation contexts). In traditional mediation, one of the parties usually seeks contact with the mediator and establishes initial contact. The question of how the other party is informed must then be clarified: does the conflict party do this themselves or does the mediator do it? In organisations, it is often - not always, but often - the case that the conflict has already been brought to the attention of another party or that the conflict has already been brought to the attention of another party - the works council or the HR department. For example, if a manager says, "There is a conflict in the team, or I am in conflict with a team, what can I do?" And then the HR department usually takes over contact with the mediator. This means that when the mediator is approached by an organisation, in most cases - based on experience - they are not approached by a party to the conflict, but by a third party, a representative. In small organisations, this can also be the management. He says, for example, that he has "two department heads who have been at loggerheads for years and now it has escalated and I no longer know what to do". So then this deputy has the dialogue with the mediator. And it may be that the mediator does not speak to the parties to the conflict beforehand, but only comes across them during the mediation. Which is ideal from a traditional mediation perspective. But financial issues, scheduling issues and resource issues are clarified with this third person, who is not sitting in the room when the mediation takes place. That is one of the biggest and most obvious differences. The old adage "he who pays the piper calls the tune" means that in traditional mediation, the costs are split 50-50 between the parties to the dispute. Here it is the case that the client - HR department, management - pays 100% for the assignment and also clarifies the assignment. You have a Triangular relationship. This is typical for mediation in organisations. This is also known from experience in coaching, for example. In coaching, the coach has the clarification with the client and then has the clarification with the client in a different setting.

How can you imagine the process? Is there a standard?

It's true that everyone finds their own style and standard or takes a more or less standardised approach. In my case, I talk to the client first. As a rule, the parties involved in the conflict are not yet present. And then, especially when I realise that mediation is appropriate, we can hold moderated clarification discussions. Then I handle it in a similar way to coaching - in the best case - so that there is a „Übergabegespräch“ gives that i.e. the parties to the conflict and the client (managing director, supervisor, HR department) and I as mediator and the client (the person who personifies the client) are together and the client hands over the assignment to me – in the presence of the parties to the conflict. So that everyone knows which order exists. Then we can talk again about confidentiality, which is something special here. The client naturally has an interest in finding out what came out of the mediation. However, they do not have the opportunity to know the content and details. And that must also be clear. That everyone knows what is being passed on and what is being treated confidentially. And then it goes further into mediation in the actual sense with the parties to the conflict. It ends with a solution, an idea for a solution or the agreement of a test phase. This is then documented in a Feedback dialogue with the client handed over again. The mediator hands over the processed conflict. It does not have to be and is rarely resolved. Instead, solutions are found for the problem, for the different commitments. Ability to work is restored. This can still be "jerky". And in a month or six months' time, it may make sense to make a phone call to see whether it has worked or whether something still needs to be adjusted.

In other words, as far as the time frame is concerned, it may be possible to make contact again a few months later. From your experience, is there an approximate figure for how many sessions such a mediation takes?

Less is becoming increasingly popular. It costs time and ties up resources. I say 2-3 sessions are usually okay, 2-3 hours each. More is more like process support. You should already have come close to a solution for the problem. Because The aim of such mediation is always to restore the ability to work and not the idea that we have to get to the bottom of the conflict and really sort things out. We live in complex times that are constantly harbouring potential for conflict. We all know this and we don't need to imagine that everything will be fine at some point. Instead, it is often work to negotiate and balance potential conflicts. And Conflicts that lead to mediation are those where the potential has risen above the tolerable level. And the task here is to iron it out again and make it fit for work again.

Here you can again see the approach of thinking from the perspective of the organisation, in contrast to other mediation processes.

Yes, exactly. The longing that may sometimes prevail among people that everything will be all right again through mediation, that everything will be different and that my work colleague can suddenly become my best friend, is often not true. And mediation in organisations has a different starting point than, for example, separation and divorce mediation, where you can make a clear arrangement, which then of course also has to be tested, where this organisation of marriage or partnership has ended. And then it's more about negotiating the organisation or, if you like, the parenting system. In organisational mediation, the system generally remains the same as it was during and before the conflict (employee, colleague, superior, etc.).). It's usually not about a separation clarification. Although of course it can also happen that someone says, I'm leaving the company, how can we best do this?

We are not used to paying someone to be present and talk to us in a conflict in which we are looking for a solution, but not to give advice or a solution.

The mediator is already giving advice by recommending mediation and acting as an expert advisor for the procedure.

What is special about mediation in organisations compared to other conflict resolution processes? And what are possible stumbling blocks to success and what are particularly favourable conditions?

Yes, that's a lot of questions all together. The speciality compared to other procedures that also involve third parties: the mediator, the judge, is that the Mediator has no decision-making authority. Some also say that he can make suggestions and contribute ideas. But that is also quite controversial and a question of style. But in essence, he cannot say how it should be done. While the mediator says how it can best be done, he makes a mediation proposal. And the judge says: that's how it's done and then they have to do it that way. Whereas the mediator doesn't say anything substantive about the matter, or only in exceptional cases. And that, in my opinion, makes it – which doesn't necessarily have to be a consensus – so hard to sell the product „Mediation“. We are not used to paying someone to be present and talk to us in a conflict in which we are looking for a solution, but not to give advice or a solution.

The mediator is already giving advice by recommending mediation and acting as an expert advisor for the procedure. To assess whether mediation is the right procedure. But then he psychologically ensures huge disappointmentWhen he says: „I will not decide anything and I cannot tell you who is right. It's also pointless to say what I would do in their place “

Rather, he is convinced that if the parties to the conflict can represent themselves and come to an agreement, then that is the most viable solution. We humans are not used to that because we are already very technically orientated. And assume that there is an expert for conflicts and that the mediator is such an expert, he has to tell me what the right thing to do is. But then he only gives process suggestions: talk about what you want, the interests and needs behind it. That's unusual. And in the end, you can't even say whether a solution or agreement will be reached.

On the other hand, and especially in business matters, I also experience that this „restraint in the matter“ also brings relief to the customers, the decision is not taken away from them, they retain sovereignty over it.

[Interviewer]…I think it's also because it's not clear from the beginning what the added value is, because the participants have a decisive influence on the end.

Exactly and that Understanding conversation as added value, as clarification and broadening of perspective...is an experience that is either there or not. If you haven't experienced it yet, to say I'm going to spend money on it, to treat myself to it and I'm going to do it, then it's difficult to gain access to it. And it is basically an unheard-of product to charge a lot of money for such uncertainty. It's different with a lawyer or a judge, you spend a lot of money, but you also know that an effective decision will follow. That gives you more security than this unknown. We would rather be satisfied with a bad but safe decision than with uncertainty, which is what makes it so difficult to establish mediation. And the fact that – simplifying – the bad but safe decision costs money only increases it psychologically. Whereas the offer of mediation for a fee, which causes uncertainty, requires a high level of reflection and emotional „ previous experience“.

Conversely, is it the case that companies only turn to mediators when a lot has already happened? When it comes to more drastic conflicts, do you think it would have been better to mediate earlier?

This can be a realisation that if the mediation is a good experience, a mediator will be called in earlier next time. Afterwards, the experience is there that such a dialogue can help. But you first have to experience that someone can bring about new insights by asking questions. This is one of the key aspects of mediation: the mediator asks questions and thereby provokes new insights from the parties. This change of perspective...and this is not a transfer of knowledge, this is a consequence of questions and we only learn this as a society and as human beings. This does not help per se, just as a legal decision does not always help.

What are stumbling blocks and what are particularly good prerequisites for successful mediation?

One stumbling block is clearly the idea that the solution will come„, the security provided by false promises, e.g. by the mediator. Favourable conditions are accordingly when people already have experience of the fact that a change of perspective does not just happen, but has to be provoked. But that it can be created. If there are people who know and can do this, it is helpful. In other words, any experience of therapy, coaching or supervision can help. They simply realise that it's like when I talked to good friends or my grandma and she helped me to change my perspective, I felt good simply because she listened to me and asked me something smart. Experiences like that help, people know that you do that, that can help.

How widespread is mediation in organisations? Especially in relation to social organisations, in the social sector vs. in commercial enterprises?

Mediation is generally not widespread - regardless of the sector. They can here: in the blog post „No reason to complain? also read. For 15 years there have been far fewer complaints in Germany, a dramatic decline. But these people don't go to mediation, even though they still have conflicts.The sector has not grown as a result. Mediation as a product is a niche product, a classic slow seller, if you like. In the field of social organisations and healthcare organisations (clinics, hospitals, social associations), mediation as a name in itself is somewhat widespread, but the way of dealing with conflicts is much more common. Supervision or team supervision is absolutely common for teams in social organisations. That a team supervisor comes and discusses cases or even team situations, because these people traditionally work with relationship dynamics in their profession and address relationship issues. That is the essence of social work. Knowing that when I get involved with people, I also need "psycho-hygienic events" where I can clear my head and gain some distance so that I can then do a good job again. That is why this experience of changing perspectives, taking a step back and dealing with relationship issues is much stronger there than in an automotive supplier or traditional industrial company. However, these experiences and approaches are strongly person-driven; it's about mental hygiene, not organisational and strategic clarification. 

Supervisions in social institutions tend to be personal or team events, rather than organisational events, with strategy or business issues taking a back seat.

However, I would still look less at whether this title of mediation is more common in these companies, but rather similar processes such as process counselling more intensively and more frequently in the company. Whether you call them mediation or clarification discussions, team moderation, team supervision or team coaching is of secondary importance. Although mediation has this structured legal procedure through the Mediation Act, much of what happens in mediation also happens in other procedures.

Would you say that the voluntary nature of mediation in organisations is different from that of other conflicts?

Yes, what they didn't realise when they signed the employment contract can then be interpreted as a restriction on voluntary participation. But of course everyone knows that if I don't go there (mediation), then it can fall on my feet. Then my colleagues look at me funny, my boss won't understand and I might be accused of being to blame for the conflict and could be dismissed if the dispute escalates. That's another point in connection with mediation in organisations.

To what extent do you use fixed procedures in mediation and to what extent do you respond flexibly to the needs of the client, depending on how the process develops?

Fixed process components are order clarification, order handover and order handback. What happens in the narrower process is usually somewhat more open: round-table discussions, in a circle of chairs; but it can also take on the character of a workshop when it comes to developing ideas. All methods of process consulting, organisational consulting and team coaching are welcome.

In other words, they use very different methods - depending on what is appropriate for the goal.

Exactly.

…In the case of mediation in organisations, this means giving the conflicting parties the perspective of the organisation. This is often lost when Paul and Paula argue. Not seeing conflicts as bad and dangerous that you have to walk away from. Instead, go there, take a close look, switch on the light and look in every corner.

What do you see as the biggest challenges, difficult situations and the best moments for you as a mediator in mediation?

The biggest challenge is always getting to that point: taking the plunge, going to mediation and saying I'm going to go for it. Promoting it and making it clear where the added value lies is the biggest challenge for me.

This is also shown by statistics, the scepticism that mediation rarely takes place, but when it does, it is often carried through to the end and with a high level of satisfaction. It goes to court "very quickly", but satisfaction with the outcome is much lower. Whereas getting to mediation is the biggest challenge. And for organisations, this means that mediators also have the same standing as organisational developers or team coaches, that we are regular contacts for potential conflicts and sensitive discussions. Moderators, mediators, that this external perspective is utilised as the greatest challenge.

And the nice moments are simply the moments of success, quite succinctly, when we experience the aha effects: "I didn't see it that way at all, I didn't realise that you meant it that way when you said it, I thought you would…". There is Change of perspective and AHA effects instead. These are the beautiful moments.

Who can become a mediator? What personal skills, formal education? How do you become a good mediator?

Formally, anyone can become one, without limitations. Training is often linked to formal requirements such as professional experience, a degree or similar. Whether it suits you is usually shown in the work. You need to have a certain affinity with other people, an interest in other people. A high level of commitment is required for both perspectives to be communicated. It needs Curiosity about how things that don't seem to fit together fit together. Mediation often involves people who have been brought together by the conflict - if they had nothing to connect them, they wouldn't be in mediation. Conflict can be very unifying. And to introduce this perspective, where is the good in this bad, as we often see the conflict. This is the change of perspective that mediators offer. And in the case of mediation in organisations, this means giving the conflicting parties the perspective of the organisation. This is often lost when Paul and Paula argue. Not to see conflicts as bad and dangerous that you have to walk away from. Instead, go there, take a close look, switch on the light and look in every corner. And to realise that it's not just not bad, but really helpful. And to enjoy facilitating this learning process is what it takes to become a mediator.