#266 from Innovative Leader Volume 6, Number 3          March 1997

Mediating Disputes
by Beverly Potter, Ph.D.

Dr. Potter provides management and self-development training for corporations, government agencies and colleges.  Among several books she’s published are Beating Job Burnout:  How to Transform Work Pressure into Productivity and From Conflict to Cooperation:  How to Mediate a Dispute (Ronin Publishing, Berkeley, CA, 1994, 1996), from which this article is adapted.  She is located in Berkeley, California and can be reached by email at docpotter@aol.com, www.docpotter.com/.

Whenever workers think others are interfering with pursuit of a goal, they are bound to clash.  Conflicts per se are not a problem, because they can signal a need for change, prevent deadlocks and create a troubleshooting climate.  The problem is how to manage them.  When a squabble is mishandled, it can reduce morale and motivation, and provoke more conflict.

Consider this situation.  Collin, a researcher, and Stacey, a lower-level technical assistant, argued over a computer.  Ann, the project leader, talked to Stacey, then called in Collin.

Ann:  Stacey says that you keep taking her computer.  What’s going on, Collin?

Collin:  Wait a minute!  We agreed to leave it in the conference room so we could both use it.  But Stacey keeps taking it, and she’s not using it.

Ann:  Stacey has things she must type.  You’re a planner.  Take your typing to a clerk.

Collin:  You’re always on Stacey’s side.  She broke the agreement!

Ann’s efforts laid the foundation for further conflict because Ann violated several important principles of effective conflict management.

Gathering Information About the Conflict

Bring disputants together. 

Separate conflict interviews are time-consuming and can create problems.  Without the adversary present, disputants are likely to exaggerate or distort issues to sway your opinion.  Worse, the implication is that you will decide what action will be taken, whereas talking to disputants in each other’s presence sets the stage to let them solve their own problems.

Interview all disputants. 

Find out how each disputant sees the conflict, because disputants who feel that they haven’t been able to tell their stories fully, aren’t likely to follow through on a resolution plan.

Maintain control. 

Angry people often interrupt to correct the other’s version and to sway you.  Be prepared to control such outbursts.

Use your authority.  Communicate authority through your manner.  Subtly, but firmly, convey the message, “I expect you to cooperate by following my instructions.”  This message, combined with the fact that you can enact negative consequences is very effective.

Set ground rules.  State what you expect and what can be expected from you.  “I’m going to begin by finding out about the problem.  I will talk to you one at a time, about how each of you sees the problem.  I’ll begin with Joe and then I’ll ask Sam how he sees it.”  Often this is all that’s necessary.  Have the disputants tell you their stories.  While one is talking, the other should be listening, but not participating.  If you allow disputants to talk to each other, they may start arguing.

Use your body.  Sit between the disputants so, if bickering breaks out, you can quickly lean forward to block their view of one another, and redirect their remarks back to you.  If necessary, stand up between them and restate the ground rules.

Use gestures.  Avoid pointing or shaking your finger.  Palm-up hand movements encourage disputants to talk, while palm-down gestures communicate, “Wait!”  For more impact, use a palm-down gesture with a restatement of ground rules.

Begin with a low level of force.  If you make a strong display of force by raising your voice, for example, it will be difficult to back down.  Generally, start with a gentle firm manner and escalate the force in your voice, words and gestures as needed to control disputants.

Keep disputants on the topic.

When disputants get sidetracked into describing other people’s opinions, get them back on the topic with, “What’s the problem as you see it?”  Or summarize what they’ve said about the problem.  Maintain a here-and-now focus, and stop accounts of previous conflicts with, “What’s the problem today?”  Focus on the most current problem, because successful change in one area will encourage work toward resolving other problems.

Get specific information. 

Avoid erroneous conclusions by focusing on observable behavior.  What did the person do?  Say?  When and where did it occur?

Remain impartial.

Don’t say or imply your opinion.  Your casual remarks could lead disputants to feel cornered or judged.  When a disputant feels backed into a corner, expect a defensive reaction.

Do not agree or sympathize.  Your effectiveness as a mediator depends on your impartiality.  Expect disputants to try to get you to agree with them.  If you fall in this trap, you’ll sound like you’re taking sides.  Avoid reassuring or sympathizing because, as well-meaning as your actions may be, they can be interpreted as a vote of confidence for one’s adversary.

Don’t judge.  Don’t try to determine whose story is “correct.”  It’s not necessary to identify reality to resolve the conflict, but it is crucial for each party to hear how the other views the problem.  And when people are judged, they tend to edit out parts that make them look bad, and exaggerate aspects that make them look good.  Also, judging shifts responsibility so you become the all-knowing monarch who will review facts and issue and edict.  Disputants can then thwart your resolution plan and blame you.

Encourage disputants to express feelings. 

Disputants often fail to state the problem fully because of unexpressed feelings.  “Check out” each disputants feelings when there’s a discrepancy between words and nonverbal messages.  Look for sneering or disbelief.  A feeling check might be, “I sense you have some negative feelings about the other person.”  Check out feelings when disputants say contradictory things.  For instance, Alex may say she likes working with the Jill, but then starts complaining about Jill.  A feeling check might be, “Do you mean that even though you like Jill, she does things that bug you?”

Sum up often.

With each disputant, summarize what he or she said, “So the problem as you see it is….” to insure that everyone hears how the other side sees the problem.  Agreement with your summary is the signal to move to the next person.

How to Mediate

Elicit suggestions.  Ask one of the disputants for a suggestion.  If your request is met with, “I don’t know,” or “I don’t see any way to resolve this,” restate the request, perhaps a bit more firmly.  If, after 2 or 3 requests, the disputant doesn’t offer a suggestion, turn to the other disputants and repeat the process.

Don’t make suggestions.  If you offer suggestions, you’ll become responsible for solving the problem.  Ignore disputants when they ask for your suggestion and firmly restate your request, because people are more likely to follow through on their own suggestions.

Don’t evaluate suggestions.  Accept disputants’ suggestions, or you destroy your impartiality.  Leave evaluation to the other disputant, who won’t agree if they are unreasonable.  Once you get a specific suggestion, propose it to the other disputant.  If the suggestion is rejected, ask for a substitute.  “Then what do you suggest instead?”  When you get an alternative suggestion, take it back to the first disputant.  Continue in this back-and-forth process until the disputants arrive at the agreement.

Clean up language.  Drop judgmental or insulting remarks.  For example, “Tell the fool to get off his duff and finish his report!” should be taken to the other disputant as “Betty suggests that you complete your report.  What do you think of that?”

Push for a specific behavior change. 

“I want him off my back!” is too vague.  Find out what change is being requested.  Specificity makes accountability possible and exerts pressure to carry out the agreement.  Everyone will know exactly what each has agreed to do.  Anyone who doesn’t follow through will look bad.

Develop a plan. 

Mediation should end with a clear statement specifying what each disputant will do.  Summarize the resolution and get a final agreement from all disputants.

Write it down.  Put the agreed-upon plan in writing.  Have all parties, including yourself, sign the agreement.  A signed agreement communicates, “I expect you to follow through.”

Schedule follow-up.  Follow-up promotes success because disputants know that they’ll have to account for carrying out the agreement.  During follow-up, disputants can re-negotiate the agreement.

Reward small changes. 

Acknowledge disputants acting in accordance with their action plan.  Because it’s difficult to change, acknowledge progress, no matter how small.

Successful Mediation

When you guide disputants through the process, you’re actually conducting a training session. If you consistently use this approach, you’ll discover that over time, disputants will spontaneously use negotiation and contracting without you having to intervene.  This will take the burden off you, and promote harmonious and productive work relationships.