Office Conflict Resolution Through Practical Mediation

Office conflict is almost never delivered in a handing strikes of lightning from a cloud right on the noggin; It slinks in through unread emails, seating charts and also an offhand comment made in the kitchen at 4:45pm. If you want a healthy, productive workplace, mediation needs to be clear eyed and operationally pragmatic and avoid hiding behind policy speak or laying blame.

The importance of mediation

Organisations are also becoming more collaborative, think cross functional teams, agile squads, matrix reporting. Which is fabulous for innovation, but it also multiplies the points at which people rub up against one another. A conservative figure from the CPP Global study estimates that 85% of employees have some sort of conflict in the workplace.

You might assume mediation delays things; I see it as accelerating the process, by getting out of the way this cycle of recurrent butting up against one another that robs productivity, morale.

Two controversial quick thoughts right upfront:

• Formal investigations and disciplinary procedures are frequently the wrong first step. Mediation is generally the smarter, quicker move.
• Encouraging teams to solve some of their own disagreements (with coaching), leads to better, longer lasting results than top down decrees.

Both views annoy HR traditionalists. Good.

Begin at the source

Superficial mediation is just that, superficial: Band Aid approaches like apologies, quick fixes and mandated team building events. The mission is not to paper over. It's to figure out the root causes: miscommunication, misaligned expectations, role ambiguity, perceived unfairness, personality conflicts or organisational design.

Too many interventions are blind to causes. A pragmatic approach is: get the data. Speak to the parties individually. Read the email chains. Look at the meeting minutes. Ask managers about workload distribution. This is not about loading your arsenal, it's about shaping the image today so that the mediation discussion is real, practical and reasonable.

Personality and communicative styles matter

Personnel come to work with different temperaments and communication habits. One person's candour is another's aggression. What one person sees as being about the facts, another experiences as obsessive micromanagement.

Mediators need to speak human variety fluently, not in diagnoses, but in recognising patterns. That involves understanding when someone needs some space to process as opposed to needing an immediate, pragmatic solution. It also means altering your language, tone and questioning style to make sure each person feels heard.

Organisational design is a common source of contention

Never underestimate the influence of architecture. Ambiguity about who does what, responsibilities that overlap or are unclear, decision making behind a veil of obscurity; they add to the friction every day.

I've seen teams in Sydney where two people were effectively responsible for the same deliverable, and no one knew until a mediation session revealed months of passive aggressiveness and crossed deadlines.

Mediation is equal portions therapy, systems review and guidance. If the solution is just a better RACI, do it. If it's a change to how the allocation of resources happens, escalate it up into a broader Organisational conversation. Fix the environment and you avoid a lot of recurring disputes.

Setting the stage, practical prep

Preparation is what separates a half baked chat from a transformation mediation. The mediator should:

• Meet with each party separately to learn of perceptions and interests
• Be a fact finder, mapping the factual terrain and identifying patterns (performance metrics, communication habits, modes of interaction)
• Do manage expectations for the session, what success will look like if it's attained
• Find neutral space that is private (not the C.E.O.'s office; not at the team's regular meeting spot)

Expect emotional moments. Plan for them. If you can't have that conversation anymore because it's not a healthy place to be, have your cooling off mechanism. Pay an independent co mediator for high conflict cases.

Establish a neutral, respectful tone

A mediation lives or dies on the tone that is set in the room. Rules matter. Here are some simple, non negotiable ground rules that I apply:

• No interrupting when the other person is speaking
• Don't mock or belittle anyone else; restrict comments to behaviours and impact
• Confidentiality, within whatever agreed upon limits felt right to work toward emerging solutions rather than assigning blame in mediation

Get participants to help create the rules. The closer people are to what they contribute, the more likely they are to follow through.

Active listening and empathetic communication

This is the bread and butter. But it's more than nodding. It's reflecting what you just heard, naming the emotion behind the words and defending reality with clarifying, open ended questions.

"Tell me more about that meeting" is also better than "Why didn't you say something earlier?"

One technique I use: ask both sides to paraphrase that the other has just told me. It's revealing. Most of the time what seems like a huge disagreement is just a bunch of small misunderstandings.

Seeking the common ground

Resolution of conflict often turns when sides see a point of agreement. Productivity. Career progression. Client success. Quiet mornings. Options multiply once you switch the dialogue from positions (i.e., I need this task off my desk) to interests (I need time to do strategic work).

I once found myself mediating between two bosses who each wanted better performance, one of them by the numbers, the other in terms of Customer satisfaction. By framing the issue in terms of competing versus conflicting priorities, they were able to get the teams scheduled collaboratively and focused on shared KPIs that worked for both teams.

Come up with as many options as possible

Be creative with solutions. Don't judge ideas. Use formal creativity exercises: lateral thinking prompts, role alienation, "what if?" propositions. Encourage quantity, not immediate quality.

Too few mediators go the extra mile and quit with first credible offer. Push a bit. Think small, three week pilots with agreed review dates, not big, permanent fixes.

Formalise agreements and accountability

A fuzzy handshake isn't going to be enough. Successful agreements are detailed: Who had does what, by when, how will success be measured and what happens if the wheels come off.

Include timelines and review points. A six week check in is common. If you are going to do so, put the agreement in writing and make sure involved organisational managers know (although not every last soul, secrecy still counts for something).

Documentation is the removal of ambiguity and a protection for relationships. It's also pragmatic. People forget; organisations evolve; the record helps everyone get their bearings again.

For avoiding the next hostage crisis

Mediation shouldn't be a one off firefight. Preventative tactics are cheaper and more humane:

• Role clarity, stand up a RACI if you must
• Feedback loops, 1:1s every week or two where people can surface this stuff early on; make it routine
• Manage with conflict and coaching skills, the manager is first line defence for issues like these, they're in the best position to see signs before things become ticking time bombs
• Create psychological safety, build an environment where I feel safe raising that escalations. I don't need to worry about revenge reactivity (from ideas in "An Everyone Culture")
• Train folks on listening and empathy

We run these types of programs in Melbourne and Brisbane, and it sticks, too, people get much better at surfacing issues early, which is the idea.

When mediation falls short

There are scenarios where mediation cannot fit the bill: Continual harassment, criminal activity or when one of the parties refuses to participate in good faith. In those instances, formal HR or legal steps should be taken.

But I'd say those cases are the exception. Frequently enough, organisations go straight to a formal process because the latter is easier to defend in writing. That's short term thinking. One that will be short and memorable.

In Adelaide

I was brought in to mediate between two engineers who had been making acidic remarks to each other in code reviews. It grew and ultimately one didn't want to participate in some of the modules. In the end, in individual interviews when peers learnt each other's history: one believed the other was usurping credit for work; the other felt micromanaged.

We mediated. The solution was straightforward and pragmatic: explicit contribution notes in code check ins, a quarterly peer recognition slot in team meetings, and an outlining of code ownership obligations. No one was punished. Productivity returned. People regained respect. The Organisation avoided weeks of disruption.

This is not to suggest that mediation is magic. It's process, structure and follow up. But it had a powerful result, small changes, big effect.

Tough conversations, fair outcomes

Mediation is most effective when parties accept the premise that the aim should be a fair outcome, not "winning." Your job as a mediator is to translate complaints into interests and move everybody from blame into problem solving. Keep emphasising the commercial and human stakes. When people are reminded of common goals they become surprisingly practical.

Two bad ideas, but I support compulsory mediation for some internal disputes before they escalate to formal disciplinary measures. People push back on this because they are terrified of being forced into a conversation. But an organised, well run conversation often averts escalation and is more kind.

Let teams manage low risk interpersonal issues on their own with occasional coaching. Autonomy builds capability. It also creates a culture in which individuals view mediation as a natural course of Business, not just a last resort option.

Both ideas will make some leaders queasy. And that's not necessarily a bad sign.

Follow up: measure and review

You can't know if a mediation "worked" unless you measure. Simple tools would do:

• Short post mediation surveys (anonymous)
• Manager observations 4 6 weeks out
• Tracking performance or client facing stats that matter
• A quick pulse check in regular 1:1s

If you get word of the issue again, revisit that agreement. People change jobs, prioritise projects differently, take on new challenges, and with them, new stress. A living plan or system trumps a static one.

How training can help

You are able to embed good mediation practice through training. Hands on scenario exercises that expose the skills of active listening, paraphrasing, interest based negotiation and ground rules are a great way to improve capability across the organisation. Because people tend to learn fastest by doing, in many of the workshops we run, we feature role plays and filmed micro feedback.

If you are truly invested in minimising repetitive quarrels, put the money into training your managers and team leads.

Final thought

An incomplete one, as life itself scarcely ever is. Mediation isn't neat. It's human, often messy and sometimes clumsy, and when done right, it's incredibly efficient. It keeps people in their chairs, not in the lawyers' office. It's there to protect institutional knowledge and maintain relationships that, in the end, work to run a Business.

So the next time someone says a formal complaint is the only alternative, think again. Consider mediation first. Allow people to speak, to be listened to, to mend what's broken and learn. It's not the easy road, it's the practical one. And in a world of finite time and talent, that's the kind of common sense adjustment we should all support, even when it annoys the traditionalists.

Sources & Notes

• CPP Global Human Capital Sources and Definitions. The source for these estimates, and the supporting information with respect to today's emissions (e.g., "based on current emissions…"), is as follows: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) / World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). "Workplace Conflict and How Businesses Can Leverage It to Thrive." 2008. (Stat: 85% of employees report feeling some level of workplace conflict.)
• Safe Work Australia. "Mental health in the workplace, guidance and resources. 2020. (Referenced within an Australian context on impact of the workplace psychologically and necessity for early intervention.)