They say that in Workplace Conflict Mediation the principles of ‘Independence’ and ‘Neutrality’ are key. The Mediator must not know the parties involved so that they cannot be accused of bias or favour to one or other of the parties.

Recently I was doing some personal CPD and reading Gerry O’Sullivan’s brilliant book ‘The Mediators Toolkit’ about the 10 ‘Neuro Commandments’ but most especially the last 5, the SCARF drivers:  

Thou shalt seek comfortable status positions

Thou shalt always predict to have a sense of certainty

Thou shalt retain your autonomy

Thou shalt relate to others

Thou shalt prefer fair behaviour

In short, status, certainty, autonomy, relatedness, and fairness.

These can be considered in the same way as our need for safety, food, water and shelter – SCARF drivers that are not fulfilled trigger the same response as a threat would and result in Amygdala Hijack. In this hijack the ‘fight or flight or freeze’ mechanism is invoked.

Whilst doing this CPD I was involved in an ‘ad hoc’ mediation at work when I was drawn into a dispute between an employee and a number of senior managers. I was asked by one of the managers to be an independent witness to the delivery of an informal interview (which was in this case a written statement) to an employee. I was happy to do this in my role as an advisor to the Management and as the Diversity and Inclusion Practitioner (D&I(P)).

But what had caused the dispute?

The employee was in charge of a certain area of the workplace but was often confrontational in the face of managerial supervision. They were generally uncooperative with managers who requested a change of procedure which was required to meet a change in operational circumstances. This had led to a breakdown in trust between the employee and the management to the extent it was decided to record the issue in an effort to come to a conclusion one way or another (a pretty standard procedure across many organisations). As part of the ‘interview process’ it was decided to remove the employee from their own supervisory role – which in itself might have been construed as Constructive Dismissal -  and, after a period of training, they would deliver a presentation to other members of their department which would show that they understood the supervisory process and how, despite being ‘in charge’ of their area, they was still subject to direction from above.

The employee was exceptionally unhappy with the content of the ‘record’ and felt it was not formal and that they were being punished without HR being involved and that proper disciplinary procedure had not been followed. At the end of the ‘interview’ the employee was asked to sign the ‘record’ which they refused to do, stating they would take time to consider the content before furnishing a reply. The manager delivering the interview became exasperated that the employee didn’t understand that this was an ‘informal’ process. Even though the record would be placed on their ‘file’ it would be removed once the employee had given the presentation and demonstrated they understood how the supervisory chain functioned. There was an impasse, and the interview was terminated. Seeing that the employee was considerably distressed I remained in the interview room to offer support (part of my role within the organisation). This chat quickly turned into one where the employee requested advice from me wearing me D&I (P) hat. They felt they were being bullied by the management team and wanted to lodge a formal complaint with HR – this is a normal reaction given my experience where emotion, adrenalin and stress allow the Amygdala to take control of the reasoning process.

The employee left work after the end of their shift still very angry and distressed. I returned to the management office and explained this and that a situation was developing that might not have been the one envisaged. They now felt that the ‘informal’ interview was the wrong option and that they should have just gone straight for a disciplinary.

What was clearly at play here was Driver number 6 – status. The employee felt that by removing their supervisory status their overall standing within the organisation was under threat and this assumption added considerably to their emotional stress. The Management team felt equally ‘threatened’ - they had expected the employee to accept, without question, the ‘informal interview’ - instead they had argued the management position was wrong and that the ‘interview’ was not ‘informal’ and was a ‘punishment’ that had not followed due process. The management felt this undermined their status. Neither was backing down. When parties are in conflict and are emotional, they react on ‘auto-pilot’ and the Amygdala starts to dictate reaction. Neuroscience has shown that a perceived threat to status activates a similar response in the brain as a threat to one’s life.

Over the next few days, the employee reported sick, supported by a Dr’s note leaving them unable to perform their primary task within the organisation. There was frequent contact between me and the employee as I offered welfare support and provided advice with my D&I(P) hat on. There was also a significant number of conversations with the management team about the situation and how it might be handled. The employee had written a reply to the manager who had delivered the interview and asked for clarification on some points. The manager refused to reply but took the employee’s correspondence as ‘proof’ that the ‘interview’ had taken place should it subsequently be needed.

The employee was now intent on submitting a formal complaint to HR about how the situation was handled and the lack of due process. They informed me of this, and I realised this was a situation for mediation. But, the ‘rules’ meant that I could not be that mediator, I knew both parties well and had my own opinions about what had been going on. I suggested mediation to the employee, but they refused believing that the management team would refuse or that they would only attend because they felt it would look good to the board.

So, the impasse continued. But I found that I what I was delivering was not pure workplace conflict mediation but something else. What it was at the time I couldn’t say but I now know this to be ‘Strategic Mediation’ which is very popular in the USA but less so in the UK¹. I was listening to both sides who were aware that a form of mediation was occurring and that I was moving between the parties and offering advice on their position and how they might best meet the other party’s wishes. I was taking those offers and refusals between the parties whilst advising that a move to a ‘discipline’ procedure by the management was untimely, clumsy and unwise whilst, at the same time, advising the employee that submission of a written complaint to HR might look churlish, vindictive and immature. Both sides remained 100% convinced they were in the right.

For both parties now, but especially the employee, Driver number 7 was emerging. The need to be certain of the future. Ambiguity and uncertainty about their future within the organisation was raising the employee’s stress level, the management were showing some concern that, if the employee submitted a complaint the subsequent investigation might find that due process had not been followed and what they thought was a reasoned ‘informal’ approach to the issue was indeed ‘punishment’ without due process. None needed that finding on their record especially given that several were looking promising for advancement within the organisation.

This was coupled with Driver number 8, the need for autonomy over the events in our lives. Leotti and Delgado in their ‘Inherent Reward of Choice’ found that the anticipation of making a choice showed increased activity in the ‘reward’ regions of the brain. The management wanted to have the process in the ‘Interview’ followed by the employee before a return to ‘status’. The employee wanted a different process followed. Neither were budging.

A breakthrough occurred when having fully appreciated the original issue as presented by the management, I was able to show - in my own words and using my own experiences in another organisation as an example - the employee how their understanding of the supervisory chain, and who controlled what and how, was flawed. The penny dropped - that matter was conceded - the employee understood the management issue. When this breakthrough was presented to the management team there was a collective sigh of relief and there was some consideration as to how to ‘return the employee to supervisory status’ using another process i.e. without a presentation being delivered. But we weren’t there yet.

Driver 9, relatedness, was also in play. Relatedness can be best described as an ‘Affinity’ Bias, in that we feel greater trust and empathy towards those who are like us and less for those that are different or in different social groups (such as the management team). This ‘out group’ feeling is especially dominant when a party feels marginalised or believes they are being bullied. In this case the employee felt intimidated by what was written in the ‘interview’ record and the associated requirements for regaining their position and status. So much so that they were seriously contemplating lodging a formal complaint. Conversely the management team felt the employee’s reaction was over the top and were exasperated that the employee couldn’t didn’t see or perceive the dispute from the management side of the fence and worried the employee was out to cause needless trouble. Conversely there were seen as aloof, untrustworthy and out of touch.  

I was able to persuade both sides that their perception of the other’s intent was misplaced and that both were holding on to an ‘exaggerated’ picture of the other side. Although we were 2 separate ‘teams’ we were all on the same side, striving to get the job done and to solve the problem and that without some type of compromise the dispute would take a much more formal and lengthy path. Eventually both were able to relate to the other party and understand what they might be feeling.

Finally, there was Driver 10, the need to feel that we are being treated fairly. This was certainly absent for the employee who believed that everything had been taken out of context; that some procedures had been ignored by the management team, and that they were not following proper procedure. They felt they had been overly punished without proper recourse and that they were being attacked for character and professional flaws, with all this coming out of the blue. There was little inclination to compromise by the management team. In these circumstances the Amygdala is activated when we perceive that we are not receiving fair treatment. Research shows that receiving a fair treatment initiates a reward response. I realised that the supervisor needed to see that they were being treated fairly but they needed help to see through the wood for the trees. I did this by observing that what they saw as a punishment was in fact an opportunity. They would deliver their presentation as a trusted employee who has been with the organisation for a reasonable time and that this ‘status’ would mean that their team would see them as holding a ‘respected’ training position as well as being a supervisor. It could be that there were others in their team, and indeed across the organisation, who might also not fully appreciate how the supervisory and managerial chains operate. However, they were not convinced, and Driver 10 took a serious hold.  

Now it was a matter of seeing if there could be any shift in the stance from the management team, initially there was none - the need to keep ‘status’ was dominant. I explained to them how much the employee had moved their stance; they had appreciated their original mistakes and were aware of the need to manage how they dealt with the Managers and recognise where authority lay. The employee had produced a presentation that they would deliver to the management but no one else. They felt that was presentation was simple and effective enough to be given by anyone to a wider audience at a later date. They still felt that this would be interpreted as ‘punishment’ by a wider audience. This seemed like a ‘fair offer’ to me and the Director agreed (so far, they had observed the issue from afar). There would be no presentation just a chat between the supervisor and the Director that would show the latter that the former had really understood the issue. Once the Director was convinced the supervisor would be returned to their position.

And that’s how it ended. The Director was convinced, a compromise had been reached and everyone’s SCARF needs had been met to one degree or another. It wasn’t a traditional way of undertaking workplace mediation, but it was relatively quick. It was undertaken around shifts and in a few days. It was better than seeing a complaint lodged, then waiting for mediators to be appointed by Head Office and, in the meantime, watching the problem fester and probably spill out into the wider organisation. It in itself was a compromise, a hybrid if you like between commercial and workplace mediation, undertaken using 2 breakout rooms with a mediator well known to both sides and with an affinity to both but also armed with a vested interest to do what was right for both parties but equally as important, the organisation itself. This type of Mediation doesn’t meet the ‘Independence’ or ‘Neutrality’ often seen as the foundation of the mediation process, but it does take into account the need of the organisation as well as the individuals involved. This is Strategic Mediation and is not the model of ‘Facilitative’ Mediation the vast majority of us have been trained to implement.

I learnt a lot about mediation from that!

End Note:

Before this mediation I was unaware Strategic Mediation existed and it was only whilst chatting with Paul Kirkwood, an extremely experienced Mediator, about this blog I learnt about it.  Paul invited me to read his Masters Submission on the method which was very informative. He also directed me to Kenneth Kressel’s work² which made me realise I had not stumbled onto a new method of mediation but one that has a strong basis across the ‘pond’. I am aware this will strike a negative note with many ‘experienced’ mediators in the UK, but Strategic Mediation is, I believe like everything else from the USA going to be here soon.

‍