Organisational Dispute

Background

The mediation was set up by the HR director after securing agreement from both parties. The mediator recommended a one-hour confidential session with each party separately followed by a joint session. Due to work commitments of the parties it was agreed to limit this joint session to 90 minutes.

In their 1:1 session, the senior executive explained that on a number of occasions they’d felt confronted by the junior executive, who seemed not to respect their authority, and as a result were anxious about a joint meeting. The mediator spent time talking about how she’d manage the joint meeting, explaining that ground rules for communication would be set out at the start and giving reassurance that both parties could leave the meeting at any time. At the junior executive’s 1:1 meeting they expressed concerns that the senior executive wouldn’t listen or take on board what they had to say. The mediator worked with them on communication – how to phrase their thoughts and to speak in an unemotional, non-accusatory way.

It became apparent early on in the joint session that there was a great deal to cover. So, in agreement with the parties, it was decided to focus on talking about their ‘triggers’ and how they could better communicate with each other. It was agreed that if communication between the parties could be improved a further set of sessions could be scheduled for another day to deal with the ownership of projects.  At the end of the session, the parties had agreed a tone and manner of communication going forward acceptable to both. They also agreed that they’d only communicate with each other in a public area as they weren’t comfortable speaking in private.

Following the joint session, the mediator reported back to the HR director that a further mediation session was envisaged. The HR director spoke to the parties and both confirmed they wanted to have another mediation session. The mediator attended one week later to resolve the outstanding issue of project ownership. She spoke with each party separately and confidentially for an hour. This was to obtain feedback on the first mediation session and how communication was working since then. She then worked with the party to identify information about the projects – to list current ones, ascertain what ideas were in the pipeline, who would work on what and how many of the ideas could actually be put forward at a management meeting. With communication between the two parties now improved, at the two-hour joint meeting that followed it was possible to put together a list of mutually agreed project ideas.

The mediator worked with the parties to draft a settlement agreement that both parties signed on the day and took a copy away with them.

Outcome

From vague allegations of withholding project ideas, mediation secured a written list of projects that both parties agreed would be taken to the board in the following 12 months. It also improved the relationship between the two parties – both felt that they were getting along better and could work together going forward. Six weeks later, when the mediator checked in with the HR director, this continued to be the case. The performance of each party at work had also improved due to their better mental health.