How to Mediate
Elicit suggestions: Turn to one of the disputants and request a suggestion with a probe, such as "What do you suggest?" Often your first request will meet with a denial, a reversal, or an extreme. An example of a denial is "I don't know" or "I don't see any way to solve this." Ignore denials. Simply restate the request for a suggestion, perhaps a bit more firmly. If you request a suggestion three times and don't get a response, turn to the other disputant and repeat the process. A disputant may attempt a reversal, such as "I don't know. What do you suggest?" Clearly this is a ploy to shift the responsibility for solving the problem to you. Once again, sidestep this by ignoring the question and restating the request for a suggestion.
Sometimes the disputants will offer extreme suggestions, such as that their adversary acquiesces; that you take some radical action such as terminating their adversary; or that they be given some unreasonable privilege. Simply accept the suggestion and ignore the unreasonable aspect. If you fall into the trap of commenting on the validity of the suggestion, you will destroy your impartiality and reduce the chances of a successful mediation. Leave evaluation of the suggestion to the other disputant, who won't agree to something extreme.
In most cases if you remain firm in communicating that you expect the disputants to solve the problem, one of them will offer a suggestion. Remember, disputants don't want to appear unreasonable in your eyes. When the first disputant refuses to offer some suggestion, that person is running the risk of the second disputant's offering an acceptable one. The first disputant knows that refusing makes a person appear to be a troublemaker and thereby undermines the reasonableness of his or her side of the story. By remaining firm in your insistence on a suggestion and by avoiding the urge to offer one, you can capitalize on this unspoken undercurrent.
Don't accept vague suggestions; use the interview techniques to clarify exactly what the disputant means. Find out what specific behavior change is being requested. For example, a suggestion such as "I want him off my back" is not workable. What exactly is being requested? If the adversary agrees, what exactly has been agreed to? "Tell him to stop commenting on my spelling" is workable because it requests a specific behavior change.
The need for specificity cannot be overemphasized. When a final agreement is arrived at, the specificity will make accountability possible. Both parties will know exactly what they have agreed to do, and whichever party does not follow through will look bad. Specificity exerts a strong pressure to carry out the agreement.
Check out suggestions: Once you get a specific suggestion, check it out with the other disputants. "Tom suggests that you stop commenting on his spelling. What do you think of that?" The pressure is on the second disputant either to accept the suggestion or to offer a substitute. When you get an alternative suggestion, take it back to the first disputant. "Bill suggests that you proofread the draft before giving it to him. What do you think of that?" Continue this back-and-forth process until the disputants arrive at an agreement.
Be impartial: For mediation to work, it is imperative that you remain neutral. Accept the disputant's suggestion without comment. Don't criticize or evaluate it-and above all, don't offer suggestions.
As soon as you offer suggestions, you will become responsible for solving the problem. People are more likely to conscientiously follow through on their own suggestions. When the solution is yours and the plan fails, you can be blamed.
Sum Up the Agreed-Upon Action Plan
When it appears that the disputants have arrived at an agreement, sum up the behavior changes each has agreed to make. Mediation should end with a behavioral contract. This is an if-then contingency statement for example, "I (Tom) will proofread all my reports and correct all the spelling errors if Bill will make comments on the content of the reports only and say nothing about the spelling." Such a resolution statement specifies what each disputant will do. Sum up the resolution and get a final agreement from all disputants. For example, while looking at Tom, you say, "Tom, you will make sure that the final copy of the monthly report is typed without errors if Bill makes no comments on your spelling when he reviews the draft. Is that agreed?" Then, turning to Bill, you add, "Bill, you will read the drafts of the monthly report and make no comments on Tom's spelling if he agrees to make sure the final copy is typed without errors. Is that agreed?"
Write a Behavioral Contract
Put the agreed-upon plan in writing in the form of an if-then behavioral contract. Have all parties, including yourself, sign the contract. You don't have to call it a contract. If you prefer, you can say, "To avoid confusion I will write a memo confirming this agreement.
Please initial the memo: I will send you a photocopy for your files." What you call the process doesn't matter; the important thing is that it is written and signed-this emphasizes commitment. The message to disputants is, "I expect you to follow through." With a signed written agreement, accountability is easy, and the disputants know this. Set up an appointment for a follow-up talk or interview with both disputants together. Also write this into the contract.
As you can see, the interview-mediation approach to managing conflicts is straightforward. The amount of time required to manage a typical conflict between two subordinates is surprisingly minimal. In most cases you should be able to complete the entire process in a half hour or less.
The Follow up Session
The follow-up session augments accountability. Disputants know that they will have to account for ways in which they did not adhere to their agreement. This exerts additional pressure to carry out the plan conscientiously.
During the follow-up session, adjustments can be made to the plan. Perhaps the agreement was unrealistic. Sometimes one or both disputants will agree to a greater behavior change than they could accomplish. When this occurs, conduct another interview and mediate a modified action plan. At other times, the action plan will have been carried out successfully by both parties. Such success usually sets the stage for resolving other interpersonal problems between the disputants. If they are receptive, you might try probing other problem areas. Avoid leading questions and simply ask, "Are there any other problems which you care to discuss with me?" Control is usually not as big an issue here. Often the disputants will carry the major responsibility for negotiating; you merely have to intervene occasionally to keep them on track.
A successfully resolved conflict can have ramifications that far exceed the immediate conflict. Others in the work area will see that the disputants have solved a conflict through a mutually agreed-upon behavior change. They will get the implicit message that you expect all personnel in your unit to be responsible for solving their own problems. In short, each time you guide disputants through the resolution process, you are actually conducting a teaching session. If you consistently use this approach, you'll discover that over time disputants will spontaneously use negotiation and contracting without your having to intervene. This will take a tremendous burden off you and will set the stage for more harmonious work relationships.
