Dr Roger Seaman explores the subtle nuances of five key approaches
The popularity of using mediation to deal with conflict between employees has grown over the past 20 years or so, but there has been little attention paid to the variety of approaches to mediating that exist. While, on the whole, one broad style of mediation is used, there are choices of approach within this general style, new styles becoming available and practitioners who use a mix of styles. Before commissioning mediation to resolve a specific conflict, it’s worth considering these and deciding which might be the most suitable for the situation.
Academics who both research and practise mediation acknowledge a division of mediation practices into two overarching styles: ‘problem solving’ and ‘relational’ (1). This categorisation does largely hold true, but mediators may mix styles and so, in practice, overlaps may occur.
The aim of problem-solving mediation is simply to help parties reach an agreement by resolving the ‘issues’ that are causing the conflict. While all styles must deal with issues, the relational styles move the focus away from issues to emphasise the need for parties to recover their ability to communicate with each other. It is argued that, through helping the parties to really ‘listen’, they may come to a better understanding of their own and the other person’s feelings and perceptions. And through such improved communication, resolution of issues may follow.
There are two main types of problem-solving mediation: ‘evaluative’ and ‘facilitative’. In evaluative mediation, an impartial mediator assesses the issues to evaluate the relative merits of each party’s position. The mediator then helps the parties reach agreements or forms of reasoned compromise. The parties involved are encouraged and possibly directed towards an agreement envisioned in part by the mediator.
In facilitative mediation – the style that dominates workplace mediation – the mediator is said to be neutral with respect to both the parties and any solutions found. Mediators manage a structured meeting process, asking questions to identify interests and needs, and working with the parties to find options for resolution. As an Acas guide puts it: “They do not suggest solutions, although they may float ideas.”
The concept of mediator neutrality is recognised by some to be an unrealisable ideal. Just by controlling the meeting process, mediators exercise considerable influence over the parties. The notion that ideas for solutions ‘may be floated’ further indicates that facilitative mediation encompasses a spectrum of potential mediator influence. This ranges from the evaluative and directive at one extreme, to the minimally intrusive at the other. When the mediator chooses to operate at the minimally intrusive end of this spectrum, they work reflexively to avoid sub-conscious tendencies to bring their own ideas of an appropriate resolution to bear upon the parties’ deliberations. They also pay attention to the emotional aspects of the conflict.
Relational styles seem to have been developed from disquiet about the lack of neutrality believed to be prevalent in much facilitative mediation. There are at least three types of relational mediation: ‘transformative’, ‘narrative’ and ‘explorative’.
Transformative mediation is more common in the US where it has been adopted, in-house, by the US Postal Service. Mediators follow parties’ conversations, yielding control of the meeting process to the parties. They intervene to underscore shifts in the expression of feelings of ‘empowerment’ and in ‘recognition’ of the other party’s viewpoint. In this way they help parties to recover from their ‘crisis of interaction’.
Narrative mediators, on the other hand, listen to parties’ stories of their conflict and help them tease apart salient features with a view to reconstructing a less conflict-saturated story.
Explorative mediation borrows from the transformative style by following the parties’ accounts rather than directing a process. It seeks to gain a deep understanding of the parties’ conflict through an exploration of its emotional and factual substance – therefore retaining facilitative mediation’s concern with the ‘issues’.
Because a problem-solving, facilitative approach is more structured, it may serve to contain a conflict and prevent too much destructive recrimination in the mediation meeting. A more directive hand may be required to guide parties away from conflict. But, if an agreement is overly orchestrated by the mediator, parties may not be able to subsequently own or sustain it. A minimally intrusive facilitative or ‘relational’ style will be less containing and more trusting of the parties. Full or partial agreement may require more effort but, when genuinely achieved by the parties, proves to be highly resilient. Employees who are trusted will reciprocate trust in the policy of offering the opportunity for mediation.
1. See Kressel, K (2006). ‘Mediation Revisited’ in M Deutsch, PT Colman and EC Marcus (eds) The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, CA: Jossey-Bass
Dr Roger Seaman is the author of Explorative Mediation at Work: The Importance of Dialogue for Mediation Practice (2016)