The Essential Guide to Workplace Mediation, Essay Example

Conflict in the workplace often takes the form of hostility or incivility between two or more people (Maravelas, 2005, p. 25). The reasons given may well vary from person to person and situation to situation, but they tend to cluster around a few common themes. The first key theme is the idea that the other party does too little around the workplace, in essence a charge that the other party is lazy and unproductive. This may also grade into a related theme, namely that the other party is the recipient of favoritism, typically from a superior. Conversely, conflicts can center on the opposite theme, namely that the other party asks too much and/or micromanages (Maravelas, 2005; Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 21-25). Of course, these themes can exist as complements of each other in a given conflict: Person A may charge that Person B is lazy and only does the bare minimum, while B alleges that A asks too much and is too inclined to micromanage. Either or both of them may aver that the other is the recipient of favoritism (Maravelas, 2005; Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 21-25).

The meaning of conflict, speaking in terms of the context of the workplace, is an adversarial or antagonistic relationship between two or more parties. Referring to the above example, which is fairly prototypical for a great many workplace conflicts, both parties want something from the other that is at odds with the other’s desire. It is especially important to note that as presented, the allegations of Person A and Person B constitute demands that conflict entirely. After all, if Person A were to relent and grant Person B’s position, they would have to admit that they were wrong about Person B being lazy—or else they would have to swallow their resentment and pretend to think this. On the other hand, if Person B were to relent and agree that Person A’s expectations and management style are entirely reasonable, they would have to admit that they were in the wrong and that they need to put in more effort—or else, again, they would have to swallow their resentment and pretend to think this (Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 21-25; Mahony &Klaas, 2008; Trudel&Reio, 2011; Weinstein, 2001, pp. 10-15).

While such a conflict may seem intractable, and attempting to resolve it may seem like attempting to put the very squarest of pegs into the very roundest of holes, the trained mediator knows to look past the positions articulated by the individuals in question in order to see the underlying issues and search for common ground. Doing this requires gathering the right kinds of data. The mediator needs to understand the problem, and in this context that would mean understanding what it is that Person A wants Person B to do, and why. What is it about B’s performance that A finds so unsatisfactory, and how does B’s performance compare with what is typical for their position? On the other hand, what is it about A’s requests that B finds so overbearing and unreasonable? Why do either or both of them think that the other one is favored by upper management? (Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 49-52; Blackard, 2001).

Answering these questions is vital if the mediator is to get to the root of the matter, and at first that means talking to A and B both without the other one present. Alternative approaches might include sitting both of them down in the same room without talking to them ahead of time, and trying to ascertain objective truths in order to instruct them about how to resolve their problem. Asking the questions of each of them on their own first is, beyond a doubt, the best option for action: it allows the mediator one-on-one time with each of them first, enabling them to get both sides of the story in a context that does not involve the other party. Once the mediator has gathered this data, they will be in a better position to evaluate not only the truth of the matter but also how A and B might find their way to some common ground. In particular, the mediator will need to gather information that helps them to go beyond what A says they want from B and vice-versa. Rather than simply focus on A’s and B’s respective stances, the mediator will need to understand the deeper issues (Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 49-52; Weinstein, 2001, pp. 20-25).

For example, maybe A feels that she is always having to do everything herself to make sure it is done right, and her response to that is to employ a managing style (or a teamwork style) that others, like B, find overbearing and unduly demanding. For his part, perhaps B feels that he is as productive as A or anyone else at the workplace has a right to expect, given what they are paying him and how he is treated. Perhaps if he was made more a part of things and did not have A constantly breathing down his neck, he suggests, he would have more energy and enthusiasm at work. Already there are hints of the deeper issues at stake for each of these individuals: A feels that she cannot rely on anyone else, while B feels that he is never appreciated or respected. In their own ways, both A and B have trust issues: neither one feels that they can trust other people in the workplace, including (but not limited to) each other (Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 49-52; Weinstein, 2001, pp. 20-25).

The actual process of mediation entails a very different approach than the kinds of communication styles and behavior patterns that are typical in the situation that is at issue. In many cases such communication is adversarial, with each participant a combatant seeking to “gain”—often measured in psychological terms—at the expense of the other. In mediation, on the other hand, the emphasis is on listening and sharing with an eye toward integrating conflict management techniques into the organizational culture. The goal must be to resolve the conflict as a whole, not merely redirect the conflict into some other form. This means helping A and B to understand how the ways in which they act are affecting each other, and how they can work toward a more efficacious style of communication and cooperation (Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 52-55; Weinstein, 2001, pp. 24-27).

For example, A could employ a more collaborative approach to her conflict with B over B’s participation. Note that A does not necessarily have to admit that she was entirely in the wrong, and say that B’s performance was perfectly fine—this may or may not be the case, and A should certainly never feel compelled to say something she does not believe to be true. Rather, the emphasis is on her treating B as more of a colleague, including the use of proper communication when she feels his performance leaves something to be desired, and trusting him to manage his end of the bargain. For his part, B might need to be more conscientious and proactive in return. Perhaps he was working perfectly hard; perhaps he needs to increase his performance. Whatever the case, he needs to honor A’s efforts. He also needs to feel the freedom to tell A—diplomatically and respectfully, of course—when he is feeling unduly micromanaged or otherwise ill-used (Blackard, 2001; Doherty &Guyler, 2008, pp. 52-55;Trudel&Reio, 2011, pp. 409-415;Weinstein, 2001, pp. 24-27).

The crucial insight that runs through mediation is that both parties must truly listen to each other, and refrain from attempting to increase their power at the expense of the other. By applying these strategies and skillsets, A and B can find better ways to handle their conflicts. What they are doing is integrating these new skills and styles of interaction into the organizational culture of the company. Over time, they and others in the organization can evaluate the impact of these organizational conflict resolution and mediation activities, and make adjustments as needed. Such an approach to handling conflict looks for constructive ways to resolve differences between people by helping them to figure out what is important to them as well as what is important to the other person. This emphasis on mutual understanding, listening, and compromise as needed can achieve great things in terms of resolving conflicts and helping people to achieve more collaborative and harmonious ways of interacting with each other.

References

Blackard, K. (2001). Assessing workplace conflict resolution options. Dispute Resolution Journal, 56(1), pp. 57-62. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/

Doherty, N., &Guyler, M. (2008). The essential guide to workplace mediation & conflict resolution. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page, Ltd.

Mahony, D., &Klaas, B. (2008). Comparative dispute resolution in the workplace. Journal of Labor Research, 29(3), pp. 251-271. DOI: 10.1007/s12122-007-9021-2

Maravelas, A. (2005). How to reduce workplace conflict and stress. Franklin Lakes, NJ: The Career Press.

Trudel, J., &Reio, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles—antecedent or antidote? Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), pp. 395-423. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20081

Weinstein, R. J. (2001). Mediation in the workplace. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.