A mediator who deals with conflicts in the workplace should have a basic understanding of organisations. This includes business administration, aspects of organisational psychology and (theoretical) knowledge of the processes in teams and groups. It is also important to look carefully at who needs to take part in any mediation in order for it to succeed, as not only the interests of the mediating parties but also the interests of the company and its objectives are always at the table. The participants should therefore be selected in such a way that everything that contributes to positive conflict resolution can be decided in mediation. Conflicts in organisations often arise because there is a lack of clarity regarding competence and responsibility – here, the mediator must narrow down exactly which conflicts can be dealt with sensibly and which should be resolved at other levels. This can lead to a new mediation with other participants or to the organisation deciding on further measures. Particularly in organisations, the mediator must be aware that the outcome of mediation may be that the participants find a different way of dealing with unchangeable framework conditions and are not always able to resolve the conflict completely.

• for the parties to the conflict: Empathy and the ability to balance inequalities in rhetoric, power, etc.

• for the managers involved: basic coaching skills.

• the commissioning organisation itself: A clear clarification of roles and a precise description of goals and expectations. And the courage to refuse an assignment if the conditions for mediation are not met.

What (additional?) skills does good mediating conflict management require in the context of organisations?

• A mediator must react to complexity in organisations. In practice, this means that the goals and expectations as well as the progress of mediations are subject to constant critical scrutiny: In doing so, one must constantly ask: Can the desired goal (still) be achieved with the mediator's tools? Do new goals emerge during the mediation? Do other measures need to be implemented beforehand for mediation to be successful? Is the conflict that is being dealt with actually a conflict between the mediating parties or does it arise due to organisational conditions?

Mediators in organisations should have an understanding of processes in organisations (Systemic understanding), for hierarchies, for leadership styles and also to be sensitive to the challenges facing organisations today. In my experience, conflicts in today's organisations are strongly influenced by the (rapidly) changing world of work, in particular the (unhealthy) management and error culture as well as the different values of the generations. New forms of work and media pose challenges both for those involved in the organisation itself and for the mediator.

Conflicts in organisations are usually already at an escalation stage where several people are involved. The mediator may be faced with the challenge of conducting team or group mediations. In addition to the mediation process and conflict management with the individual, methods from team development or team coaching are advantageous here.

The mediator also acts in an organisation with several stakeholders (client, staff, managers, works councils). Here it is important to focus on the objectives of mediation and to follow a clear process so as not to be instrumentalised by individuals. A mediator in an organisation should be aware of other support and counselling services offered by the organisation in order to delineate or include them in the process (company doctors, external employee counselling).

What should mediators who are called in by organisations to deal with conflicts in the workplace (be able to do)?

• for the parties to the conflictThe initial focus here should be on restoring the ability of the people directly involved to act. This means, among other things, clarifying the facts, clarifying misunderstandings, if possible equalising space/time, separating the factual and relationship levels, etc. It is a good idea to agree clear rules for mutual interaction, including coded escalation warnings if necessary.
  If the acute conflict situation has calmed down, the second step should be to work through the conflict with the aim of helping the people involved to recognise their own parts, unfavourable behaviour and systemic aspects. Ideally, this lays the foundation for avoiding future conflicts. Agreeing on rules for future interaction can be helpful here.
• for the managers involvedWith the managers, possible personal factors and leadership-systemic aspects in connection with the conflict should be analysed. Dysfunctional attitudes and structures can fuel the occurrence of conflicts, as can the lack of ability or willpower to deal appropriately with the early indicators of conflict that often emerge in advance.
• the commissioning organisation itselfFor the organisation, it is crucial to understand whether a conflict a) is primarily a personal-interpersonal induced conflict, b) the conflict is partly or entirely based on dysfunctional leadership behaviour or c) the conflict is a symptom or expression of a pattern caused by unfavourable systemic-organisational-cultural conditions.

What (additional?) skills does good mediating conflict management require in the context of organisations?

• In addition to communicative, moderative and psychological competence, conflict management should above all demonstrate leadership and systemic-organisational competence. Conflicts are often an expression of a lack of orientation, a lack of rules, a lack of agreements regarding the inner attitude of mutual interaction and appreciation for one another, a lack of objectives, a lack of meaningfulness, etc. In a dysfunctional environment, conflicts are pre-programmed and are then "merely" a symptom - the roots lie deeper, the fundamental elimination of causes is then the responsibility of managers and top management / owners. This adds another important skill for conflict counsellors: humility and the ability to distinguish well between a problem (=> changeable) and an unpleasant situation (=> not changeable)

What should mediators who are called in by organisations to deal with conflicts in the workplace (be able to do)?

• for the parties to the conflict: Mediation is probably not yet recognised as a term by the vast majority of the workforce, whereas this has long been clarified as a method in personnel development. For me as a mediator, this means that I have to start by explaining what mediation stands for and what it does not. Furthermore, I have learnt from practical experience that as a mediator I need to be aware that the self-evident "saving face" of both parties to the conflict is even more important here. Clear "rules of the game" for the upcoming mediation are particularly useful for employees who, after years of postponing their conflict issue, are suddenly expected to talk about it or even inwardly expect negative consequences from the mediation, in order to increase the chance of being able to open up at all. For me as a mediator, does this mean that I can build trust within the first few minutes? Am I aware of the company's predetermined rules of the game? How do I deal with informal "rules of the game"? They do exist, and I am aware of them in advance.

• for the managers involved: Is the manager a party to the conflict? Has the manager possibly discovered this conflict and would like to have it resolved in the interests of a good working atmosphere within his department? These are two different things. In the former case, I have seen managers who sit down comfortably in their chair with a satisfied and confident smile. And the employee? Full of energy and rather aggressive right from the start or perhaps very intimidated? For me as a mediator, the "hardest work" here is to establish a balanced power relationship between the two parties to the conflict. How does that work? Not easy to answer. Perhaps with good "tact" in the proportion of speech, the mediation of active listening and a feeling of independence towards both parties to the conflict. In the second case, managers may endeavour to restore "calm to the shop". They may have already held talks themselves beforehand, with rather unsatisfactory results. Now the mediator is supposed to sort it out. As a mediator, I realise that issues have already been raised here, perhaps many times. Will I manage to get the conflicting parties talking again? They are prejudiced and think: "We talk about it and little or no change happens".

• the commissioning organisation itself: As a mediator in a company context, I am faced with a dilemma. I am paid (and not directly by the parties to the conflict) and there is a certain expectation that the problem will be resolved after the mediation. Of course, as mediators we can always invoke our independence, but is it that simple? Here, too, it is important to clearly differentiate ourselves from other methods and clarify our mandate.

What (additional?) skills does good mediating conflict management require in the context of organisations?

• Organisations are generally used to solving problems through meetings, projects, consultations and organisational development. This means that employees are already trained and familiar with many methods. However, the methods in organisations are usually not chosen by the conflict parties themselves. This is where organisations can create opportunities to demonstrate the diversity of different methods. Are there contact persons here, perhaps even with experience? In order to minimise certain fears and reservations about carrying out mediation.

What should mediators who are called in by organisations to deal with conflicts in the workplace (be able to do)?

• For Parties to the conflict In addition to the values and techniques that are taught in every mediation training programme, mediators should above all provide socio-emotional support in coping with the stresses and strains that accompany a conflict. Whether disappointment and anger, fear and resistance, grief and bitterness, ambivalence and longing for certainty, etc. - it is always a matter of empathetically reflecting the current complex mixture of emotions, i.e. to name them as an offer in a non-diagnostic way in order to enable self-clarification. This also involves the interactions and dynamics of feelings. The empathy with the emotional world of one party should be formulated in such a way that the other side does not feel attacked, accused or condemned. You must constantly practise recognising how an empathetic verbalisation affects the other party and what reaction it triggers. Here, every mediator is required to recognise their own intuitive emotional processing strategies so as not to propagate them more or less subliminally. "Neutralising" strategies that are aimed at avoiding a high level of arousal in communication are particularly problematic here. Who hasn't experienced this - the fear of a heated argument that threatens the success of mediation? We can all still learn a lot in this area.
• In dealing with Group leaders In the case of conflicts in their working groups, the challenge for mediators tends to be over-respect for people with high status. Mediators who perceive themselves as having a lower status than "high-ranking" managers such as chief physicians, managing directors, etc. are easily tempted by them to view their views less critically and to follow them with priorityThe management of a group is more influenced by the views of the conflicting parties or less important people in the group. As a result, there is a risk of becoming an unnoticed executive organ of the managers and supporting the fulfilment of their interests more than those of the other parties in the group.
• With the commissioning organisation the central requirement is different again: the people placing the order usually do not want to be involved themselves and want "peace and quiet in the box". They have enough problems and tasks to deal with and do not want to be additionally burdened by superfluous disruptions. Mediation should take the pressure off them. I have seen time and again that the involvement of the client in the mediation process has brought decisive momentum to the conflict resolution work; not only at the beginning in the introduction of mediation, which is often perceived by the parties as obligatory, but rather in interim reports by the mediator, group leader and conflict parties, in which the interest of the client in conflict resolution has a motivating effect. As a mediator, it is easy to implement the more or less unspoken order "Keep the whole thing away from me!" directly in the mediation meeting. This avoids the unpleasant task of talking about the client's commitment and not having to ask for their involvement.

What (additional?) skills does good mediating conflict management require in the context of organisations?

• It is clear from these considerations that mediators(a) not being able to cope with the expression of unpleasant emotions in the mediation room if you let them get to you and name them in an understanding way, (b) being confronted with people of higher status and (b) offending the commissioning body with the expectation that they are committed to the mediation and thus jeopardising the assignment. This work on one's own „inner team members“, who represent these fears, should be planned for each assignment in order to gradually improve one's own competences.

• Of course, there are many other skills that can be listed here, such as knowledge of group dynamics, attitudes and methods or the recognition and practical consideration of structural framework conditions in organisational mediation. But these are new stories....

Mediators should be able to empathise with organisations. We may be talking about the pandemic, but conflicts have broken out that may have previously been small fissures. Issues that might previously have been discussed in small groups with friends are now being verbalised. There are now lobbies for opinions – if not within the company – then outside it. The shell of the organisation has become more osmotic in many places – whether it concerns political issues (which are not seen as political) or personal issues. The change in the social media world – i.e. the transparency that was not visible before – jeopardises the former work claim that you can separate work and private life. On the other hand, we – just as in society – experience a sometimes predetermined direction that not everyone wants to support, for example the instruction to now include „she/her“ in the email sender in order to enforce gender equality.

My wish would be, Executives to be more prepared for the consequences of their thinking. Easy phrases are now causing entire companies to falter – as we have seen with Brew Dog and Gorillas in recent months. Employee opinions have power over customer decisions, this is new – and it will put managers under additional pressure. The employee feels carried in the opinion set – of his „bubble“ –.

For employeesit has become more important to be recognised and respected as an individual. This also means expressing wishes that are not legally possible, such as total flexibility in the place of work. The employer is bound by the legislator to regulations that are passed on in the name of all „ and which the individual does not understand in his or her wishes. This applies to taxes, social security, health insurance and also company law. This is where the manager feels „helpless“ – a feeling – and basically is. Mediators can be great process facilitators if they can bring all stakeholders to the table and make the various interests transparent, thereby generating solutions. This is where the works council has been seen in the past, which itself is largely hopelessly overstretched (understandably). As a result, ideas of protection suddenly become incomprehensible obstacles for employees.

For the organisation I would like mediators to understand the organisation, its strategy and the environment – and perhaps also the client. It helps better if the mediator also has a vision so that it can be compared whether there should be a short-term or long-term solution. You should demand absolute transparency from the company management – because often the whole area is already planned in some way (outsourcing, reorganisation).

Expertise? In any case, patience, steadfastness and the ability to suffer. Changing opinions takes strength – for everyone involved. In any case, there should be online expertise, openness and courage and, ultimately, an understanding for „ being different“ from everyone involved.

• For the Parties to the conflict Mediators themselves should muster the strength to offer a protected space in which the conflict can be dealt with. Absolute confidentiality seems to me to be an important prerequisite in order to enable both parties to have a future in the organisation (if that is the outcome of the mediation) without losing face.
• Involved Executives The mediator should be given the opportunity to gain a clear, objective view of the situation of the conflict parties as such (which may lead them to make important supportive decisions); the role of the manager in dealing with the conflict should also be communicated. Responsibility should only be taken on temporarily by the mediator – responsibility is essentially borne by the manager (in this respect, they should also be actively involved in conflict resolution if possible).
• For the Organisation mediation should bring stability, on the one hand to allow the parties to (re)perform their work, and on the other hand to ensure that the goals and objectives of the organisation can be achieved. However, if mediation has shown that the causes of the conflict (also) lie at the level of the organisation, mediation should ensure transparency with regard to this.