I took part in an excellent mediation workshop this week run by Karen Bailey, a talented and experienced coach, mediator and trainer in this field (http://www.karenbaileymediation.com/). I found it interesting to explore different models and approaches ranging from arbitration and advocacy through to non-directive facilitation. It resonated for me professionally because, as an OD practitioner, I’m often invited to coach others on conflict resolution, to do teambuilding where unresolved conflict is a factor affecting team morale and performance, or to act as a third party helping others (e.g. line managers and staff, or peers) to address and resolve stuck-ness or tensions between them. It also resonates for me spiritually because the notion of mediation is at the heart of my Christian beliefs. The biblical characterisation of Jesus Christ as mediator between God and humanity is the cornerstone of Christian theology, a role that Christians too are called to emulate and follow as peace-builders in the world.

The model we explored and practised emphasised the importance of creating a semi-structured space for parties to listen to each other. If they can genuinely hear each other, there is scope for establishing empathy and reaching shared solutions. This involves the willingness of all parties to engage in open, direct and…potentially scary…dialogue. The mediator speaks to this fear dynamic explicitly: ‘This is going to feel very uncomfortable, but we’re here because we believe the outcome will be worth it.’If the mediator and participants can learn to manage their own anxiety by facing it head on, they may also feel able to lower their defences and hear each other. We looked at four conditions that enable this type of mediation to be successful: the mediator is impartial; the mediation is confidential; participation is voluntary; outcomes are self-determined. These condidtions provide a basis for establishing clarity and for contracting with oneself, participants and sponsors beforehand.

Karen explains why these same conditions can sometimes make it difficult for internal HR (or OD) practitioners to fulfil this role within their own organisation or business partnering arena effectively. (For further comment on this issue, see: http://www.karenbaileymediation.com/transforming-hr-practitioners-into-mediators/). We also looked at four aspects of participant experience and perspective that provide a content-orientated focus for the mediation: each participant’s Story; each participant’s felt Impacts; each participant’s Needs; each participant’s Goals (making the acronym SING). The mediator meets with each participant to tease out these aspects beforehand. The participant’s story is his or her own subjective experience of the situation; impacts are what he/she is feeling emotionally; needs are unfulfilled desires or challenged values; goals are the outcomes each person hopes for. ‘What’s going on for me’, ‘How this is impacting me’ and ‘Why this is important to me’.

At the start of the session with all parties in the room, the mediator reiterates the process and invites the participants to (a) be honest and direct with each other and (b) listen and show respect to each other. The mediator may invite each party to make an opening statement and then allow the conversation to free-flow. The tricky part I found as mediator-in-practice was when to intervene and not to intervene, how to intervene in such a way that facilitates rather than interferes with the process, how to manage my own anxieties if ferocious conflict emerges, if one party appears bullied or if the conflict became directed at me.
Karen offered some useful ideas…simple in principle, harder to do in practice! The mediator can summarise, reflect back…’This is what I’m hearing…’, ‘Sounds like…’, enabling the participants to feel heard before moving on. The mediator can call for a break, allowing mediator and participants to step back, take time out if they need to cool down or reflect before re-engaging.

The mediator can co-facilitate with another mediator, creating the benefit of two perspectives, insights and interventions, especially valuable if one of the mediators feels hooked, emotionally destabilised or disorientated by something in the conversation and needs to detach in order to re-engage. The real challenge, opportunity and skill lies in enabling the participants to establish and maintain high quality contact with each other, even if that contact feels loaded with intense emotion. It’s a process that involves faith, faith that if the participants will find a way to hear and connect with each other, that they may feel empathy and will move towards finding their own solutions. It also demands that the mediator be fully present in the room, fully in role and fully in contact with participants. The session ends with participants discussing and agreeing their own way forward. This kind of mediation clearly demands patience and courage but the benefits can be transformative.

Crash. A stone hit the window, hard. They came one at a time at first then by  the handful. It was sunny outside and the children looked surprised, and scared. I called to the other staff, "Get the kids inside, quickly!"  and signalled to them to clear the playground. It was school holiday time and the kids' group I was running for 5-12 yr olds was under attack.

The teenagers stood at a distance, laughing, throwing stones. I went outside,  tried to look unintimidated, and shouted at them to stop it. One of them,  feeling cocky in front of his mates, climbed over the gate into the playground  and I grabbed him, lifted him back over the fence and dropped him on the other side. The others taunted me, laughing and jeering.

Minutes later another teenager cleared the fence, into the grounds. Same  routine, grabbed him and lifted him back over the fence. They threw more stones, looking more confident now. They knew I couldn't defeat them. I knew it too. The staff and children looked out of the doorway, anxiously, wondering what was going to happen next.

At that moment, an idea occurred to me. I climbed over the fence and  approached the gang, this time in a more open and less defensive way. I spoke  with them calmy, "You win. I can't keep throwing you out of the playground, you outnumber me anyway. I could call the police but, as soon as they arrived, you could just run away."

They looked awkward, surprised. I continued. "It must feel pretty boring for you guys, school holidays and nothing to do. I guess throwing the stones creates a bit of entertainment for you. I wonder if you realise, however, how scared the children were when the stones hit the play area and the windows. It really frightened them. I doubt that's what you intended."

The group was silent now. "I'd really appreciate it if you would stop throwing the stones, do something else instead. That way, the kids can come back outside to play. Would that be ok with you?" The group muttered something, looked resigned and shrugged their shoulders. I said, "Thanks lads - I appreciate it," as they walked away. They didn't come back.

I learnt something important that day. When faced with a situation that feels  threatening, it's natural to react instinctively with a fight, flight or freeze  response. If, however, we meet the threat with a counterintuitive vulnerability  and openness, it can surprise the other party, diffuse the emotional drama, open possibilities for reason and create a new way forward.