Essential Ground Rules for Successful Workplace Mediation

In this episode, Simon Goode outlines the importance of setting clear ground rules for workplace mediation to foster productive and respectful conversations. He explains his collaborative approach to developing these guidelines, emphasizing rules such as no interrupting, no insults, and avoiding assumptions, while also discussing adjustments for more contentious cases. The episode provides practical advice for mediators, HR professionals, and managers on structuring discussions and managing challenging dynamics in workplace conflicts.



00:00 Setting Ground Rules for Meetings

03:50 Setting ground rules for discussions

09:14 Dealing with contentious cases

13:23 Managing Meeting Conflicts

16:08 Discussing mediation agenda setup

17:53 Mediation ground rules discussion

21:20 Audience feedback request

Transcript

Speaker 0:09

Hello and welcome back to the Conflict Skills Podcast. I'm your host, professional mediator, Simon Goode. I set up this podcast to provide free resources and tools for dealing with conflict, so if that sounds like the kind of thing that's useful to you, please consider pressing subscribe. Well, in the episode today, I'm going to be talking about ground rules and workplace mediation. What are the kind of guidelines, what are the kind of structures that I put in place as a workplace mediator to increase the chances of a conversation being productive? Realistically, there's some that won't be. There's going to be some mediations that go pear-shaped regardless. Now I know that some of the people listening are also in the workplace mediation space, similar to myself, but if you're a HR manager or an operations manager or a small business owner, I think that very similar sort of steps could be applied in your setting as well. So even if the meeting isn't called a mediation, so to speak, it's not formal, I still think that sometimes it can be useful just to discuss ahead of time what kind of structures do we need to put in place for this conversation to be productive and helpful. I talk about this right from the word go is a workplace mediator. I normalize the fact that there's going to be some disagreements and that there's likely to be some emotion that's connected to that. It's challenging when we're getting feedback from someone, it's not easy when we butt heads or de see things from different perspectives. So I begin by saying this can be extremely challenging. That's all normal. That sense of frustration or the sense of annoyance or being trapped or whatever the thing is that causes people to start doing the wrong thing, like interrupting each other or denigrating each other or standing up or yelling or whatever the thing is that you're trying to ask them to stop doing and they keep doing it. And if we don't do something about it, I think a lot of the time the conversation just takes a bit of a negative spiral, and then before we know it, we've might have even made things worse. So with these kind of ground rules, I clarify them ahead of time. I build them into as many different conversations that I'm able to have really. And I sort of reinforce it using different structures too, as a workplace mediator, we often use a document called the agreement to mediate. So it's kind of like a signed, well, I guess, promise that they're both going to be on their best behavior, and we might outline what some of the expectations are, also some of the limitations to confidentiality and that kind of stuff too. Sometimes I'll write the rules up on the whiteboard, put it up on a slide at the beginning of the meeting just to double check. I just want to make sure we're on the same page here, that we both agree to be bound by these guidelines. And I might even say, what are we going to do if we feel like the other person's doing the wrong thing, overstepping the mark, what is going to work in that kind of a situation as well. So my approach very much is to clarify ahead of time where possible, and I try to work collaboratively. I tend to use a coaching model in my own leadership when I'm dealing with my own team. And so that often involves questions like what do you think would help? How are we going to figure this out? So I take that same approach when I apply it to the ground rules as well. Like I might often begin by saying, look, these are my ideas, but what do you think? What do you need from one another to make sure that this conversation is positive or increase the chances of it being helpful, etc.? And if they come up with ideas, I'll write them down on the top of the list or include them if they give me, I don't know, some phrasing that's a little bit contentious, like, well I'm sick of the way that Jim bullies me, so I'm happy to talk about anything as long as they're not bullying. And so I might need to pause there and say, well, I suppose the challenge is that we might have different ideas about what bullying looks like. What are you liking him not to say or not to do specifically? Ironically, they often don't know what to put up on the ground rules there, but there is often some benefit, I think, in just discussing it in person in front of one another. This is a challenging area. And so if that topic does come up and the person feels like Jim is bullying them kind of thing, I might say it seems like when they begin speaking before you've had a chance to finish what you're saying, you take that as being quite disrespectful, if I got that right. So I'm drilling down from those negative labor labels into the behaviours. So it's one of the ways that we need to almost prepare for using their input, if you know what I mean. They're not always going to phrase things in a neutral and mutual kind of way, but that's often what I aim for when it comes to the ground rules. So clarifying ahead of time, working collaboratively in terms of coming up with the actual list itself, normalizing the fact that there's going to be times when the emotions run high, and I like to use that coaching approach of what would work in the instance that that does happen. If it does play out that way, how can we manage that? What do you think would help? What do you think would would be supportive for yourselves, etc. The usual rules that I like to include, it's usually just three. I usually say don't interrupt one another, no interrupting, something similar. Sometimes I might say wait until the other person has finished saying what they're saying before you speak. Take turns speaking would be another possible phrasing, I guess. The second rule that I often use is no insults, no below the belt comments, no denigrating comments. I like to use that phrasing to be honest, like no below the belt hits. I think people know what that means. It's like the personal jabs kind of thing. But if you're running a more formal kind of mediation, maybe refrain from using denigrating language or something similar would be another way of dealing with it. I might say to them, what's the best words to use for that one? How can we capture that in the list of rules? What's a simple way of saying that, something similar? So the the bit of guidance that goes along with that, like I want you to not insult one another, and I often include this explicitly, I say, if you have an issue with something that they're saying, let's focus on the actual thing that they're saying. Or if you've got an issue with something that they're doing, let's focus on the behaviour. It's difficult it's different saying to someone, could you please lower your volume, than saying like you are obviously not taking this conversation seriously. So I'm giving some examples, I'm letting them know that along with this no insults rule, what I also expect is that if you decide to deal with an issue, that you'll deal with it appropriately. And in my mind, that means focusing on the behaviour. What are they doing? What do you want them to stop doing or change or or start doing? The third rule that I often like to include in most workplace mediations, and this is kind of an unusual one, I think, is that I I often write something like don't mind read. Don't make assumptions. And I often say something like, Look, we can't read people's minds. You both know each other, and so you've probably got some idea of what's going on in the other person's head, what their motivations are, what their thinking is. But the truth is that every situation that they're in, they're going to be thinking slightly differently. And if we paint the other person in the mediation with a very black and white brush that they're all wrong or all bad, it really limits the options that we've got for developing a more positive relationship. So no mind reading, and that basically means not making assumptions about what the other person's thinking or saying. If you think that something's ambiguous or even something that you disagree with, the first step that we should take is clarifying. Are you saying this? Could you explain that in a different way? Could you talk a bit more about this area? I don't know that I'm following where you're coming from yet. So they're my rules, don't interrupt, respectful language or no insults, and then no mind reading or let's refrain from assumptions or whatever you want to do about that one. It might just be saying try to listen to what the other person's saying, or give the other person a chance to express their point of view before judging it or criticizing it. Now, in some workplace mediations, the other rule that I often include is something to do with confidentiality. Sometimes there's an HR manager, or because of some duty of care or something, there is going to be another party that gets access to some of the information from the mediation. So I just like to outline all of that clearly ahead of time. This is what will be done from my notes or from the agreement or whatever. This is who it will be shared with, etc., just so that we're all on the same page about that. If there's limitations to my confidentiality because of duty of care or mandatory reporter guidelines or something similar, like child protection issues is another area, I don't keep those things confidential. So I just like to let people know that broadly speaking, what you say will be kept private. The exceptions to that are the following, and then I'll outline it. Now, if it's a contentious kind of case, if the people aren't speaking to each other before I go in, or if I've met them separately and they just absolutely despise one another, there's a few, I guess, tweaks or options that I particularly focus on. First, I want to make sure that there's separate rooms available, so that if I need to separate them, if they can't stop interrupting each other or can't stop insulting each other, then I'll take them to separate rooms, I'll give them a chance to cool off typically, and then I might even go between them for a little while. Okay, that got a bit heated, didn't it? Let's just take stock of where everything's up to, where your head's at, and then we can figure out what's going to work if we decide to go back and continue. So it's if we decide to go back and continue. I'm coaching them around what they need to do to manage to manage the stress of what's going on right now. So I try to make sure that I've got those separate rooms available ahead of time, and I would explain to them that if you're not able to follow the rules, if you can't stop interrupting, or one or both of you continues to make insulting comments, and that's to some extent at my discretion, what I'm going to decide is that we're going to separate into separate rooms. Each of you will go to a different office, and I'll go between you passing messages, and we'll figure out is there any hope for continuing the mediation today, and if not, what else is going to happen from here. So I tell them, if you don't follow my rules, I'm going to separate you. I'm a little bit like a parent, and I suppose similar to my parenting approach, I just try to be transparent, I try to be clear. But part of that is that this isn't endlessly flexible. This isn't something where just because you feel something, you have the right to speak, or just because you feel so insulted by what they've just said that you have the right to interrupt them. And like I'm explicitly saying no, we're going to aim and aspire to keep this structure, regardless. And if that's not something that the two of you can do, then you'll end up being in separate rooms. In my experience, that makes the mediation a lot more challenging, but I just want to be clear with the two of you ahead of time. Do you have any questions about that? Is that clear? So that's my way of like drilling home ahead of time. If you're not on your best behaviour, this is what's going to happen. For those more contentious kind of cases, I might also write the rules up on the whiteboard, like the no interrupting, no insults, that kind of thing. I'll write it up on the top right-hand corner usually myself. And then on the left, I often have the date and some summary of the meeting or whatever. And then I might begin by coming up with an agenda under that, but the ground rules stay where they are over on the right hand side. And sometimes I might even use a whiteboard marker to point at one of the rules to remind them of I just want to double check, this is what we agreed to. Is that still something that you're both committed to at this stage? I also use a firmer kind of structure when it comes to though more those more contentious kind of cases. Like sometimes I go in and there's reasonably okay rapport between the two people that are involved in the conflict. They might have quite different perspectives about what should happen about one aspect of their work, but it's not like they really hate each other, but sometimes they really do. They loathe each other, they despise each other. And so in those kind of instances, I often use a much more firm structure. So in the less contentious cases, I might say, look, I'd like to hear from you both about what's been going on. Can you give me an idea of where things are at from your perspective? What are some of the major events that have led up to that? And what you think you what you would like to be different moving forward. So that's very open-ended, and I don't usually mind if they get in a few different low blow kind of jabs or a joke, or there's some emotions that run high or something. Like when they're okay talking to each other, I think it's almost like it's a realistic um assessment of the current situation. Like these emotions are real and I don't have any problem with them sharing them, to be frank. What I do have a problem with though is that when they keep interrupting each other, it doesn't even give one or both of them a chance to express themselves, let alone the opportunity to hear one another. So when there's more arguments, when there's more vitriol, I might say, at the beginning of the meeting, I'm going to give you both two to three minutes to speak. I'd like you to explain your perspective on your working relationship, and I'd like to know what are the topics that you want to discuss today. While you're speaking, I'm going to ask the other person to be quiet and listen. I'm going to play it back to you, make sure that I've got it right, and then I'm going to open up the floor to the other person. I'll give them two or three minutes to speak. I'd like them to outline things from their perspective, what they would like to talk about in the meeting today. And while that's happening, I'm going to ask you to be quiet. Is that clear? Do either of you have any questions about that before we move forward? So it's quite structured. Like I might even get my watch out and use a timer. And I do not allow any interrupting in that initial phrase if that's the approach that I've taken. Often I'm thinking that I need to establish my authority as the mediator. And so I might say, I beg your pardon, look, I'll just get you to hold on to that for one moment. Sarah, could you continue what you were saying? Or Jim, would you mind just continuing what you were saying for now? I've I've jotted down that note, I've taken point of I've taken note of that. For now, let's just continue on hearing from each of your perspectives in this opening statement, and then we can see where we can get to coming up with an agenda. So it's very structured, timed opening statements. You are not going to speak while the other person's speaking. And I sometimes even I think I'm prepared to have a little bit of an arm wrestle with a manager or something if there's a bit of a a power play going on and they want to try and intimidate me or manipulate me. Like I'm not against them, I'm trying to work collaboratively as much as possible. But as the mediator, you do need to be one the one that's in charge of the process. So that much more firm structure, then I use a much more firm structure coming up with the agenda. Just looking through the notes of what you've both said, I've noticed that this and this and this seem to be topics that would be useful for you to discuss. What's the best way to phrase that first one? How can I put that up there on the agenda? What's the best way to say that? So I'm very, very focused. It's like we are coming up with this agenda topic. Let's work together. What's the best way to capture that, etc.? I don't usually allow a lot of silence at the beginning of those kind of mediations either. I kind of like to just continue narrating. Okay, well let me just grab the marker. I might use blue for the agenda and then we can use black for the notes. That might work well. Okay, now Sarah, you talked about this and this. I'm wondering if maybe I could put that up on the agenda as this, this, this. How does that sit with you? James, does that something that you're prepared to discuss? Obviously you're going to have different perspectives on each of these points, but are these topics that you would at least be prepared to open up some conversation in the mediation today? So that's my style. I'm very verbose and wordy like usual. I sort of like to just keep speaking because I don't like the the awkward downtime when they're sitting there staring at each other or feeling like they're gonna vomit or whatever's going on for them internally that I'm obviously not aware of a hundred percent. And then when we get to the topics on the agenda, I often bounce between them in quite a structured way. I'll ask you first to speak about this topic, since you were the ones you were the one that put it on the agenda. And then I'll give them a few minutes and I'll say, well thank you for that. Um Sarah, what do you make of that, what Jim's just shared? It sounds like for him it was a little bit like this. Was it similar to you or did you have a different experience? So I'm really like it's your turn, now it's your turn, now it's your turn, now it's your turn. Whereas in other mediations where there's a better rapport, I might just say, well what do you what do the two of you make of this? What options have you tried? What other people are involved, what do you think would work, etc. It's much more flexible, much more open-ended, at least in terms of the way that I think about it. The last option that we've got is an agreement to mediate. This is like a document that we might ask parties to sign ahead of time. Some agreements to mediate that mediators use are very, very simple. It really just says we agree to both spend time talking about the following topics. Uh, that will involve sharing our perspective as well as listening to each other. And our mutual goal is to develop some strategies that gonna that are going to work for improving teen dynamics moving forward or something similar. I guess just a few sentences and dot points really. And then you might outline the ground rules. We agree to the following guidelines in terms of the way that we will act during the mediation, and then you can outline those rules. Now, if it's a contentious kind of case, I might outline those rules reasonably explicitly. No interrupting. This means letting the other persons finish saying what they're saying before we speak. And then we might even include a final ground rule in that agreement to mediate that says we agree to follow the directions of the mediator. And I often include sections around that I can make a decision to stop the mediation if uh that's a judgment that I reach, that I have the option to share some information with the HR manager or the business owner, in the case of these kind of issues, like a concern about staff well-being or whatever else it might be. Like it really does depend on the situation, and if you're a HR manager, you might not use a very formal kind of agreement to mediate. But you could send out an email ahead of time, for example, just here's a draft agenda based on some of the information that you've both given me. Here's what I was thinking in terms of ground rules and guidelines for the conversation itself. Let me know how that sits with you. Is does that sound like something that you're willing to agree to? So with all these rules, it's not, are you happy with that? Does that make sense? Like that's just so grating for people to be asked that kind of thing, especially when they disagree with it or they think that you're being like kind of ridiculous. Whereas just saying, is that something you're prepared to agree to, it's much more of a neutral way of phrasing it. I'm not sitting there off the pom-poms cheerleading and saying you should treat each other with respect, it's so amazing. But I am saying for this meeting to be productive, this is what's going to be required. And then either informally, how does that sit with the two of you? Or more explicitly, can I please ask you both to respond and just confirm that that is something that you're willing to agree to? But I don't know, like as usual, this is just me and my approach. I'm not an overly formal kind of mediator in a lot of ways. I have much more of a focus on the relationship typically. Uh I know some people though, they're even less formal than me. They might be doing mediations outside in a park and they're not doing structured pre-mediations or taking case notes or any of that kind of thing. But anyway, I hope that hearing some of my ideas and some of my thoughts might have triggered some ideas, or there could be a few bits and pieces that you can translate to your own experience wherever you are. But I'd love to know if it has been helpful for you. If you've got feedback or maybe even an idea for a future episode of the podcast, you can shoot me an email, it's podcast at simongood.com. But otherwise, thank you very much for listening. If you'd like more resources and tools for dealing with conflict, particularly workplace conflict, please consider pressing subscribe. And otherwise, thank you. Hopefully, see you again in a future episode of the Conflict Skills Podcasts. And good luck for any upcoming workplace mediations that you've got in your diary, especially when it comes to the ground rules. And if you do find yourself trying something that I've suggested here, I'd love to hear a bit of feedback on how that worked as well. Thanks again, all the best. Bye for now.