Mediation – a panacea for the ills of workplace dispute

resolution? A comprehensive review of the literature

examining workplace mediation.

iRowe Research Paper No. 1

Lisa Banks

Richard Saundry

Abstract

In the wake of the Gibbons Review into the UK system of dispute resolution,

workplace mediation has assumed increased prominence. However, in the UK to

date, there has been little academic research into mediation. This paper provides a

comprehensive review of the international mediation literature in order to assess the

potential of workplace mediation to combat the problem of individual employment

conflict. The paper argues that there are significant obstacles to widespread adoption

of workplace mediation in the UK. In addition the paper highlights key conceptual

concerns and sets out a clear agenda for future research.

2

Introduction

Workplace dispute resolution has become a central focus in the UK for both policy-

makers and employers in light of the rising cost of individual employment conflict,

most recently estimated at £410mn annually (Gibbons, 2007:7). Traditional

approaches to this problem have focussed on the use of formal grievance and

disciplinary processes, reinforced in 2004, by the introduction of minimum statutory

dismissal and grievance procedures under the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute

Resolution Regulations).

However, in 2007, the Gibbons Review, asked by the government to ‘identify options

for simplifying and improving all aspects of employment dispute resolution’

(Gibbons, 2007: 7) recommended the repeal of the statutory dispute resolution

procedures and promoted a more informal and flexible approach to grievance and

discipline. It placed significant emphasis on the need for employers and other

stakeholders to engage with alternative methods of dispute resolution (ADR). In

particular, it argued that mediation was ‘a pragmatic, flexible and informal way of

providing both parties with positive outcomes’ and therefore urged the government

to ‘Challenge all employer and employee organisations to commit to implementing

and promoting early dispute resolution.’

The government largely adopted Gibbons’ proposals but stopped short of

introducing legislation to promote mediation. Instead they accepted the need to

encourage the greater use of workplace mediation to facilitate the early resolution

of individual employment disputes and so reduce disruption to workplaces,

individual careers and ‘burdens on the resources of all concerned – employers,

employees and the state’ (Gibbons, 2007:5).

With some notable exceptions (Corby, 1999; Harris, 2008), there has been relatively

little academic investigation into workplace mediation in the UK. There is a larger

international literature, mostly emanating from the USA, but even here, the majority

3

relates to court-mandated mediations and involves practitioners from many

different professions (Antes and Paranica, 2009). This paper provides, for the first

time, a comprehensive review of this diverse literature to examine the potential of

workplace mediation in the UK and to address a number of key questions: what is

workplace mediation and what are its perceived benefits? What factors shape the

effectiveness of mediation? To what extent does mediation offer a way to

significantly reduce the impact of individual employment disputes on employers,

employees and the state? Does the existing literature provide an adequate

conceptual framework for the analysis of workplace mediation?

The paper is structured as follows: Firstly, we examine definitions of mediation and

the different styles that have been adopted. We then examine the perceived

benefits and limitations of workplace mediation. In particular we highlight some of

the difficulties associated with evaluating the success of mediation initiatives. Finally,

we review how the organisational context and the different approaches and

characteristics of management and mediators shape the mediation process.

What is Mediation?

While, there is no universally agreed definition or general theory of mediation (Singh,

1986; Bellman, 1998), Moore (2003:15) argues that mediation is:

‘the intervention in a negotiation or a conflict of an acceptable third party

who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power, who assists the

involved parties to voluntarily reach a mutually acceptable settlement of the

issues in dispute’.

However when applied within a workplace setting, this approach is somewhat

prescriptive, suggesting a linear model of dispute resolution. This underplays the

complexity of mediation, the impact of contextual factors (Jones and Bodtker, 2001;

Bowling and Hoffman, 2003; Kressel 2007) and power relations between

stakeholders (Karambayya et al. 1992; Brett et al. 1996; Tillett, 1999; Seargeant,

4

2005; Wiseman and Poitras, 2002). Nonetheless, there is a growing recognition of

the context specificity of mediation approaches (Bush and Folger, 2005), the

mediation process and mediator performance (Mareschal 2002a, 2002b; Barrett,

1999). Consequently it is possible to identify a number of different mediation ‘styles’.

Most workplace mediators adopt a problem-solving approach (Anderson and

Bingham, 1997) which itself can be divided into three sub-styles: evaluative,

facilitative and strategic. The evaluative style has its roots in labour management

disputes and occurs most frequently in the legal arena where disputants are in

conflict over a single issue. Mediators are proactive and ensure that participants are

realistic about their relative bargaining positions. In contrast, facilitative mediation

has a strong future focus, encouraging the recognition of needs and interests in an

attempt to identify areas for agreement (Alberts et al., 2005). Seargeant (2005)

argues that this approach is highly effective for finding workplace solutions, but

stresses that the focus is on enabling participants to work together in the future

rather than resolving personality-based issues. However, critics suggest that

facilitative mediation fails to focus sufficient attention on the underlying issues that

lead to conflict (Kressel, 2007). Consequently, Kressel proposes an alternative

‘strategic’ style of mediation where the mediator drives the problem solving in an

‘empathic, but decidedly directive [and] non-neutral’ manner (Kressel 2007:69) in

order to unearth the latent causes of conflict.

The dominant problem-solving paradigm has become increasingly challenged by

relational approaches and in particular transformational mediation (Bush, 2001,

Hallberlin, 2001). Here, the mediator allows the parties to determine which issues

are discussed (Della Noce, 2004); settlement is not the focus, but may be a by-

product (Bingham and Novac, 2001). The approach identifies that individuals, de-

stabilised by conflict, can be helped to restore their self- confidence and

responsiveness to others. Alternatively, ‘narrative mediation’ (Winslade and Monk,

2000) attempts to refocus the conflict story and construct ‘a respectful and equitable

relational context that can serve as the basis of an ongoing relationship’ (Winslade,

2006:511).

5

In a workplace context, relational approaches could be criticised for underplaying the

importance of ending the conflict in the short-term. Indeed, McDermott et al

(2001:18) found that US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)

mediators rarely use transformative techniques because of the ‘need for a solution in

order to avert an investigation’. At present, research suggests that the facilitative

style is practised most frequently in the workplace (Hermann et al., 2003; Seargeant,

2005; Fox, 2005; Mareschal 2005). However no dominant methodology has emerged

and one of the largest workplace schemes (US Postal Service) utilises a

transformative style (Bingham, 2004).

It could be argued that imposing clear distinctions between mediation styles fails to

reflect the fact that mediators may use a range of different approaches within a

single mediation (Riskin, 2003:32). Furthermore, it provides an essentially static

conception of mediation that underplays the extent to which mediation is shaped by

the dynamic interplay between the parties, the mediator and the mediation context

(Picard, 2004).

Benefits of workplace mediation – evaluating success

A key concern of this paper is whether an extension of mediation in the UK can

facilitate dispute resolution and so reduce the burdens placed on employers,

employees and the state (Gibbons, 2007). Although limited, the extant evidence

from the UK paints a largely positive picture. Seargeant’s (2005) evaluation of

mediation in small firms found an immediate improvement in working relations in

twelve out of thirteen cases examined. Three of these sustained all these

improvements, while eight maintained some improvement. A 2007 survey

conducted by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD, 2007)

found that organisations that provided mediation training were subject to lower

levels of employment tribunal cases than those that did not. A further survey in 2008

(CIPD, 2008) claimed ‘strong support from employers for the use of workplace

mediation’ with respondents citing a range of positive impacts in addition to helping

6

to resolve disputes. These included: avoidance of the stress of formal procedure and

the development of organisational culture. However, the most widely cited benefit

was improvements in employee relationships, perhaps pointing to the broader

impact of mediation.

Evidence from the USA also highlights the positive impact of workplace mediation.

McDermott et al’s (2000) study of the US EEOC found that in 59% of cases the parties

were satisfied with the outcome, 85% were satisfied with the fairness of the process

and over 90% would use mediation again. Bingham et al’s study (2000, 2002) of the

US Postal System which uses transformative mediation, revealed a 60% - 70%

satisfaction rate for outcome and over 90% satisfaction with the fairness of the

process, accompanied by a 17% drop in formal complaints.

There are also suggestions that mediation has clear benefits compared to ‘standard’

grievance and disciplinary procedures. Two useful quantitative examples include

Anderson and Bingham (1997) who found that 66% of employees and 92% of

supervisors thought mediation was more effective than traditional processes and

Corby’s (1999) comparison of New Zealand (where mediation was widely used) and

the UK, which suggested that the use of meditation in New Zealand had resulted in

fewer cases being referred to formal tribunal hearings. Reynolds (2000:169) argues

that ‘grievance and disciplinary hearings concentrate on deciding the degree to

which people are right or wrong, so communication rarely gets discussed’. In

contrast, mediation provides the parties with the power and space to find a mutually

agreeable solution (Pope, 1996; Hebert, 1999). In addition it is argued that mediation

provides significant financial savings compared with (often lengthy) traditional

procedures (Kressel, 2006; Goldberg, 2005) as sessions can often be organised more

quickly, restoring the employment relationship more swiftly and reducing the

number of cases that reach litigation (Bingham and Pitts, 2002; CIPD, 2007).

From a participant perspective, the literature suggests that mediation provides an

opportunity for individuals with an issue that falls outside formal procedures to

access an avenue of resolution previously closed to them (CIPD 2004, Montoya,

7

1998). It also provides an alternative approach for staff wishing to progress a

grievance in a less confrontational manner (Fox, 2005), perhaps encouraging

employees who would normally avoid conflict (Barsky and Wood, 2005) and even

leave their job (Berggren, 2006) to broach their concerns. Mediation also provides

individuals with the opportunity to have ‘their day in court’, whilst allowing them to

vent their emotions in a safer and less stressful environment (Singletary et al, 1995;

Karambayya et al., 1992; Sulzner, 2003; Mareschal, 2005; Wall et al. 2001; Corby,

1999). Shapiro and Brett, (1993) argue that participants find mediation more

satisfying than traditional methods and are thus more likely to uphold any

agreement reached while Seargeant (2005:27) builds on this, arguing that a

mediator’s ability to break down the disagreement into small segments helps

disputants feel less intimidated and more able to manage the process.

At a broader level, the introduction of internal mediation schemes may have useful

indirect ‘upstream’ effects. For example, training line managers in conflict handling

approaches may be beneficial, not least because managers are sometimes the cause

of conflict (Hogan et al, 1994) or fail to manage it effectively (CIPD, 2007). The

literature suggests that managers trained in this capacity improve their conflict

handling skills (Wiseman and Poitras, 2002, Bingham 2003, 2004), their reputation

(Reynolds 2000), team morale (Fox 2005), and even gain ‘knowledge or resources

that can greatly expand the opportunities for creative problem solving’ (Kressell,

2006:747). In this way the provision of mediation skills may allow for early dispute

resolution without the need for formal mediation.

However, there are clear difficulties with assessing the benefits of mediation. Firstly,

measuring success in terms of dispute settlement is too simplistic (Greig, 2005). For

example, partial settlements in complex cases can have long-lasting organisational

benefits (Fox, 2005). Instead, Mareschal (2005) argues that mediation success should

be viewed as a continuum measured against factors such as reaching agreement and

narrowing the number of issues in dispute, whilst Hoskins and Stoltz (2003:347)

contend that as change often occurs in the months following the mediation,

mediators should view agreement as a step ‘along a path of development’.

8

Importantly transformative mediation measures success not in terms of settlement

but the parties’ level of participation and recognition of each other, (Bush 2001;

Bingham, 2003). Thus meaningful comparisons between studies of mediation are

problematic and data needs to be treated with caution. This difficulty in evaluating

success rates is compounded by a number of key factors. Firstly, participants’

expectations, understanding and attitude towards mediation will influence the

nature of, and satisfaction with the eventual, outcome (Fox, 2005; Silberman, 1989;

McDermott et al., 2000) Secondly, in workplace mediation, the mediator normally

has the final decision as to whether a case is suitable for mediation. Consequently,

mediation takes place when it is most likely to be successful (Greig 2005). For

example Wood and Leon’s (2006) case study identifies fifty-four cases that were

referred to mediation, only thirty-six were mediated and of these thirty-one were

settled.

Secondly, comparing the effectiveness of mediation with that of more traditional

dispute resolution processes is problematic (Mahony and Klass, 2008) as participants

are unlikely to have experienced mediation and grievance processes simultaneously.

Furthermore, mediation may not be appropriate for all individual disputes. For

example, managers may be sceptical about offering mediation in disciplinary cases

(CIPD, 2008). It is a widely held view that it is unsuitable in cases involving overt

bullying, harassment and other situations where formal sanctions should be used

(Bellman 1998, La Rue, 2000). Indeed, Mareschal (2002a:1262) argues that ‘victims

of discrimination should not have to ‘negotiate’ for the enforcement of civil rights

granted by law’. However, others have argued that early mediation may be useful in

resolving disputes that would otherwise develop into cases where formal sanctions

would be unavoidable by highlighting the ‘unconscious and subtle discrimination or

‘micro-inequities’ often serve as the basis for many, if not most, claims of workplace

discrimination’ (Stallworth, 2001:37). Indeed, Miller (2001:2) argues that ‘mediation

is a particularly well suited process for resolving disability employment issues’, whilst

Bond (1997) encourages organisations to use mediation for sexual harassment

disputes.

9

It is also important to acknowledge that mediation is not without its dangers,

particularly where issues of power are concerned (Van Gramberg, 2006). Mediation

research tends to focus on power asymmetries within the process and particularly

between disputants resulting from differences in grade or communication skills

(Tillett, 1999). In such cases, the stronger party may simply refuse to participate

(Wiseman and Poitras, 2002) or the weaker party may feel too intimidated to

contribute. Agusti-Panareda (2004) argues that mediation should not be ruled out in

such instances, as the process protects the disputants. Moreover, Gewurz (2001)

contends that it may possible to moderate mediation style in order to address power

imbalances. However, the literature tends to neglect power relations between

employer and employee. Mediation, after all, is a management process, and, from a

radical perspective, may be seen as a means of controlling dissent. As Sherman

(2003) argues, mediators cannot change the fundamental power relationship that

exists between parties, nor can they protect the weaker party outside the mediation

session. Those power relations are inevitably underpinned by the organisational

context within which mediation takes place and are also reflected in the way in

which managers interact with the mediation process. It is to this that we now turn.

Shaping the Mediation Process

The use and effectiveness of mediation in facilitating the early resolution of disputes

inevitably depends on a range of factors. These include: organisational

characteristics and management style; the characteristics of mediators; and the

design of mediation processes.

i) Organisational characteristics and management style

It has been clearly established that the use of traditional procedures for dealing with

employee grievances and disciplinary issues is closely related to a range of

contextual variables including workplace size and sector (Knight and Latreille, 2000;

Antcliff and Saundry, 2009). Larger organisations, particularly those in the public

sector are more likely to have extensive procedures for dealing with individual

10

conflict. There is some evidence that this extends to mediation. Surveys conducted

by the CIPD (2007; 2008) suggest that public sector organisations make greater use

of mediation than private sector counterparts. Furthermore 53% of public sector

organisations train employees in mediation skills compared to an average of 30%.

Size of workplace and organisation may also be significant. Certainly, while there is

evidence of enthusiasm for mediation amongst small and medium sized enterprises

(SMEs) this is not reflected in its use. An Acas survey of UK SMEs in 2008 (Johnston,

2008) found that whereas three-quarters of respondents thought that it sounded

like a good tool for resolving disputes, only seven per cent had used it and half of

these had not used mediation in the last 12 months. Most managers surveyed

believed that mediation was ‘only suited to large organisations’. Internal mediation

in SMEs may be difficult given the personal nature of employment relations,

however, the use of external mediators involves a cost that some employers would

baulk at (Harris et al., 2008). The potential difficulty of extending mediation into

smaller workplaces is a crucial issue given the faith placed by Gibbons in

transforming workplace dispute resolution.

Irrespective of size and sector, the attitude of members of an organisation to conflict

may affect its responsiveness to mediation. Organisational conflict is often portrayed

as an ‘emotion-free zone’ (Jones and Bodtker, 2001:83) and thus managers may

dismiss emotional reactions to conflict as a sign of weakness (Schreier 2002). In this

context, mediation may be recast as a form of control, a way to avoid formal

proceedings or a way to evade people management responsibilities (Seargeant,

2004). In contrast, organisations that acknowledge the link between conflict,

employee behaviour and work outcomes (Suliman and Abdulla, 2005) may identify

more readily with mediation as a way of resolving disputes.

Where managers actually take on the role of mediator, the situation is more

complex. Managers with an insight into a dispute are also perceived as more credible

and better able to support the parties in reaching a solution (Arnold, 2000; Sherman,

1995; McDermott et al., 2000). However problems may arise if managers have some

form of power over the outcome or are limited in dealing effectively with the

11

situation because of their continuing relationship with the disputants (Jameson,

1996). Moreover, third parties with formal authority are more likely to behave

autocratically in dispute situations (Karambayya et al. 1992; Cohen et al.; 1999)

leading to more frequent occurrences of one-sided outcomes or impasses. They may

be tempted to use their authority to achieve a resolution irrespective of whether it is

in the best interests of the parties (Karambayya and Brett, 1989). The solution may

therefore be to draw mediators from a wide range of roles. However the individual

characteristics and attitudes of mediators, wherever they are drawn from will

inevitably impact upon the nature of the mediation process and its success or failure.

ii) Characteristics of mediators

Mareschal (2002a:1367) argues that, ‘the acceptability, credibility and perceived

neutrality of the mediator are the basic building blocks of mediator effectiveness’.

Credibility can help to build trust between participants (Mareschal 2005), increase

confidence and encourage concessions (Silberman 1989). Moreover, mediator

insight and credibility has been found to be significant in influencing how disputants

view mediator recommendations and consequently settlement rates (Arnold and

O’Connor, 2006; Bowling and Hoffman, 2003; Kydd, 2003, 2006).

The perceived neutrality of the mediator is a key factor in building credibility.

However it is argued that a mediator is ‘not genuinely neutral but is simply behaving

that way’ (Sherman, 2003:44). In a similar manner, McDermott et al (2000:3) argue

that mediator neutrality is a paradox, as a mediator is required to maintain an

unbiased relationship with both parties yet has to ‘temporarily becoming aligned

with each party to encourage disclosure and assist the party in expressing the case’.

This is a particular problem facing internal mediators as their occupational status or

friendship group of internal mediators may appear to align them with one of the

parties, thus affecting their credibility. Bingham and Pitts (2002) found that

settlement rates were higher for cases that used outside mediators. Against this,

internal mediators may have greater insight into the context of any dispute and the

potential solutions.

12

Experience can also be a significant factor in how a mediator manages each case and

can determine a mediator’s capacity to understand and manage difficult interactions

(Jones and Bodtker, 2001). For example, in a workplace setting it may be tempting

for an inexperienced mediator to act to reduce emotional outbursts (Tjersland,

1999), while experienced mediators may recognise that ‘real progress may occur

only after the venting process has played itself out’ (Singletary et al., 1995:225).

Similarly, Wall et al. (2001) recognise that experienced mediators faced with an

extremely hostile situation might adopt a caucusing approach to encourage

individual cathartic experiences before bringing the parties together, whilst an

inexperienced mediator may simply call a halt to proceedings. The literature is

generally in agreement that well designed training programmes provide a

foundation for mediator development (Moore, 2003; ACAS, 2005b) but effective

training may not be enough in itself. Schreier (2001) argues that it is generally

accepted that the personal skills required for conflict resolution derive from

emotional intelligence and specifically emotional self-awareness and self-regulation

(Johnson, Levine and Richard 2003). It is suggested that organisations look for

potential mediators who already possess appropriate personal qualities (Tillett,

1999).

iii) System Design

The design and implementation phases of a mediation scheme, especially securing

the buy-in of stakeholders, are critical to its success (Carter, 1999; Bingham, 2004;

Green, 2005; Hebert, 1999) and yet the literature suggests that adequate education

for managers and union officials is often lacking (Hebert, 1999; McDermott et al,

2001), while consideration of the type and jurisdictional scope of mediators often

receives low priority (Sherman 1995). Interestingly, there is a growing body of

literature which highlights the potential dangers of the increasing privatisation of

justice, arguing that employers who design a mediation scheme have control over

the process and in effect design their own justice (Bingham 2007; Bingham et al.,

2009). Antes and Paranica (2009) argue that organisational system design is in

13

danger of taking conflict away from the rightful owners (the parties) and creating

systems which focus on resolution, rather than offering opportunities to increase

employee voice (Lipsky and Avgar 2008) or self- determination (Young, 2006). This

again points to the importance of power relations in shaping the nature of workplace

mediation.

There are numerous design factors that require consideration. For example,

whether participants have a choice of mediator (Bingham and Pitts 2002), the time

period during which a grievance can be suspended (Silberman 1989) the types of

acceptable cases and participant access to representation (Bingham et al., 2002).

Bingham and Pitts (2002) found that parties who had representation had slightly

increased settlement rates, yet McDermott et al. (2000) found that participants

without representation were more satisfied with the fairness of the process, which is

perhaps at odds with Dolder (2004) who argues that without representation there is

no-one to re-dress the balance if a party is at a disadvantage.

Perhaps one of the most significant areas for consideration is the issue of

confidentiality. It is often cited as being a major benefit of the process, which

protects individuals’ reputations and fosters compromise and creativity; however the

word rarely appears in any definition of mediation. In much of the practitioner

literature there appears to be an almost naïve assumption that confidentiality will be

protected and consequently there is little evidence of the implications being

considered at the design stage. For example, it could be argued that confidentiality

rules could help repeat offenders from escaping formal procedures (Anderson and

Bingham, 1997) and limit the ability to make improvements in workplace practices

(Fox, 2005; Seargeant, 2004). Furthermore, they could be used as a form of

management control to recast organisational issues (or on occasion public interest

cases) as personal disputes (Herr, 2005; Bush and Folger, 2005).

Many of these factors will influence disputants’ willingness to actively participate in

mediation and as such are critical to the design process; particularly as voluntary

participation indicates a willingness to actively seek resolution (Fox, 2005; Seargeant,

14

2004). Brett et al (1996) place a slightly different emphasis on willingness to

participate arguing that they found similar settlement and satisfaction rates for both

voluntary and mandated mediation and argue that ‘the distinction between

‘compulsion’ to enter mediation and ‘compulsion’ to settle mediation is crucial –

only the latter is inconsistent with mediation’. Whilst this may be true in their

example of court ordered mediation, it is possible that individuals forced to

participate in mediation by their manager come to see the process as a form of

management control; thus emphasising mediation’s voluntary nature has been

identified as highly significant in securing active participation (Tjersland, 1997, Grillo,

1996). Parties will evaluate potential mediation outcomes against the possibility of

continuing with the conflict or instigating formal proceedings and thus the timing of

the intervention is also important; too early and parties will not see the necessity to

enter mediation, too late and the conflict may have escalated beyond recovery (Wall

et al 2001, Fox, 2005, Greig, 2005).

Discussion and Conclusion

Given the emphasis placed on workplace mediation within recent government

policy, there is a distinct lack of UK based academic enquiry into the subject. Indeed

it has been argued that the conclusions of the Gibbons Review itself (Gibbons, 2007)

and the consequent programme of legislative change (Sanders 2009) were based on

‘anecdotal evidence’. Therefore this paper provides an important contribution to the

debate over workplace mediation in three key respects. Firstly, it highlights key

conceptual concerns; secondly, it provides important insights into the policy

implications post Gibbons; and thirdly, it provides the basis for a clear research

agenda.

The literature reviewed above predominantly conceptualises workplace mediation as

a linear technical process. This is problematic in two main respects. Firstly, it stands

in stark contrast with Gibbons’ portrayal of mediation as an antidote to the sclerotic

formality and proceduralisation that has characterised workplace dispute resolution

in the UK. Indeed, far from mirroring Gibbons’ call for greater flexibility and

15

informality workplace mediation would appear to sit most easily within a framework

of formal and complex approaches to the management of individual conflict. It is

perhaps no coincidence that mediation is mostly used by large organisations (both in

the UK and USA) that have the technical, financial and people resources to

underwrite internal schemes or engage external mediation services. The available

evidence regarding the extent of mediation suggests that its use is currently confined

to a small minority of UK workplaces and predominantly be found within larger

public sector organisations (CIPD, 2008; Johnston, 2008). However, there is little

evidence as to how processes of mediation interact with, and relate to, existing,

more conventional procedural approaches to dispute resolution.

Secondly, there is an implicit assumption within much of the literature that

mediation, and its effectiveness, is shaped by issues such as management style,

system design and training. In short it tends to prescribe. Fundamentally, the

literature gives insufficient weight to the social processes that underpin conflict

resolution. The way in which mediation is played out within organisations is

inevitably shaped by the power relationships between key actors – participants,

managers, HR professionals and employee representatives. These need to be placed

at the forefront of our attempts to both conceptualise workplace mediation and

assess its potential for improving dispute resolution. While some accounts

acknowledge the importance of power and hierarchy between participants within

the mediation process, less consideration is given to the fundamental asymmetries

of power between employer and employee and how this impacts on the attitudes to,

and behaviours within, mediation processes.

These conceptual concerns have important policy implications for the UK. The

Gibbons agenda for reform of the dispute resolution system is predicated on the

increased use of alternative dispute resolution amongst both large and small

workplaces. A key question, therefore, is whether the adoption of mediation can be

increased without some form of legal compulsion or incentive? Within the USA and

New Zealand, the institutional environment of dispute resolution provides strong

incentives to use mediation rather than risk costly litigation (Boulle, 1999; Corby

16

1999). In contrast, the UK has adopted a voluntaristic approach, relying on

organisations seeing the positive benefits of workplace mediation.

In fact, the prima facie business case for mediation is quite strong. Firstly it is argued

that mediation works with high success rates frequently found in case study research

(i.e. Bingham et al., 2000). Secondly, this success reduces costs in that cases are

resolved that might otherwise result in long-term absence, extensive grievance

administration and costly litigation (Anderson and Bingham, 1997; Corby, 1999;

Kressel, 2006). Thirdly, a broader argument in favour of mediation is the ‘upstream’

impact of using mediation and training staff in mediation techniques. Such benefits

have been found to include improved working relations and lower levels of conflict

(Sergeant, 2005; CIPD, 2007, 2008) and improved conflict management skills

amongst line managers (Bingham, 2004).

However, evaluating the success and benefits of mediation is not straightforward.

There is scant large-scale survey data in this area and no accepted methodology for

assessing the potential costs of individual employment disputes. By their very

nature, the length and complexity of such disputes is almost impossible to predict. In

addition, high settlement rates for mediated disputes must be treated with caution

as they are self-selecting – in short, only those cases that are suitable and

consequently have a reasonable chance of success will be handled in this way.

Nonetheless, the available evidence suggests that organisational attitudes in the UK

to mediation are largely positive (CIPD, 2008) event amongst smaller and medium-

sized enterprises (Johnston, 2008). Despite this, converting these perceptions into

increased use of mediation in the workplace remains more problematic. This

possibly reflects two critical issues: firstly, organisations need clear evidence that

potential benefits outweigh the costs involved. In particular, it would seem that the

perceived cost is an obstacle for small and medium sized enterprises (Harris et al.,

2008; Johnston, 2008). Larger organisations may be able to devote greater resources

to mediation and have the scale needed to effectively introduce internal mediation

schemes. Furthermore, not only do larger organisations experience higher rates of

17

employee grievances (Kersley, et al., 2006) but they also tend to have more complex,

and potentially lengthy procedures, which in turn means that the cost of unresolved

grievances is relatively high. In contrast the financial benefits of mediation for

smaller organisations may be less clear-cut due to their use of more streamlined

grievance and disciplinary procedures.

Secondly, it has been argued that workplace mediation may only be appropriate for

dealing with a relatively narrow range of disputes, which involve an element of

relationship breakdown. In particular, whether mediation is appropriate in cases

involving breaches of disciplinary rules has been questioned (Bellman, 1998; La Rue,

2000). Furthermore, in such cases managers may be unwilling to relinquish their

authority and control over disciplinary sanctions.

Overall, therefore, Gibbons has placed an important focus on mediation, that has

been missing from UK employment relations. Moreover, there is a clear body of

evidence that points towards mediation having a range of positive impacts, both in

terms of facilitating the resolution of individual disputes and also improving the way

in which organisational conflict is managed more broadly. However, there are clear

obstacles to workplace mediation having a transformative impact on individual

conflict in the UK. Firstly, while mediation may be appropriate for dealing with the

relatively early stages of interpersonal conflict, its applicability to more serious

disputes and in particular disciplinary issues is questionable. Secondly, the cost of

external mediation and the resources needed to establish a system of internal

mediation is a major disincentive for smaller and medium sized organisations.

Finally, the legal and institutional framework of dispute resolution provides little

incentive for mediation when compared with other countries such as New Zealand

and USA. We would therefore question whether the strictly voluntaristic approach

adopted in the UK will see the widespread adoption of workplace mediation in light

of the obstacles outlined above.

Perhaps a more pragmatic approach is to acknowledge that mediation is as one

alternative in a suite of workplace conflict resolution processes (Sherman 2003)

18

rather than as a replacement for traditional methods. Used at the proper time,

mediation can also supplement traditional procedures, e.g. helping to repair the

employment relationship after a grievance has found in favour of one of the parties,

or offering a route for resolution where traditional procedures would find no case to

answer. In fact this reflects the linear technical conception of mediation that seems

to underpin much of the literature.

However, this pre-occupation with mediation as a process to resolve specific

disputes arguably obscures its broader potential. Arguably, the greatest value of

mediation is that it could provide a basis for the renegotiation of working

relationships. At a micro-level this may mean restarting communications between

colleagues in conflict with each other, but at the level of the organisation it could

recast the traditional adversarial roles adopted by stakeholders within traditional

dispute resolution processes. Therefore while mediation may only impact upon a

limited sub-set of individual conflict within an organisation, it may act as a catalyst in

changing the way in which key actors manage employment disputes.

These considerations also suggest a clear research agenda. Firstly, there needs to be

a greater focus on how different stakeholders interact both within the mediation

process but also subsequent to any resolution. Research is needed that attempts to

uncover the social processes that underpin mediation and expose the dynamic

power relations that can shape attitudes, behaviours and outcomes. Enquiry needs

to extend beyond participants, to line managers and employee representatives, who

often have a critical role in terms of encouraging or discouraging the use of

mediation processes. Secondly, research is needed that examines mediation in the

context of broader formal and informal processes of conflict management and

dispute resolution. We need a better understanding of how mediation processes

interact with disciplinary, grievance and other procedures. Finally, while we have

evidence that the majority of mediations reach agreed outcomes, we have less

understanding about how mediation impacts upon longer-term relations between

participants themselves and between employees and employers. It could be argued

that the real significance of mediation lies, not in facilitating the resolution of a

19

relatively small numbers of specific disputes but as a catalyst in changing the way in

which managers, employees and their representatives approach individual conflict.

20

Bibliography

ACAS (2005a). ‘Making more of alternative dispute resolution’, Acas policy discussion

papers, No 1.

ACAS, (2005b), ‘Acas national training programme: delegate feedback’, Acas research

paper.

Agusti-Panareda, J. (2004). ‘Power Imbalances. Questioning’, Dispute Resolution

Journal, 59:2, 101-23.

Alberts, J., Heisterkamp, B., and McPhee, R. (2005). ‘Disputant perceptions of and

satisfaction with a community mediation program’, International Journal of Conflict

Management, 16:3, 218-244.

Anderson J. and Bingham L. (1997). ‘Upstream effects from mediation of workplace

disputes: Some preliminary evidence from the USPS’, Labor Law Journal, 48, 601-

615.

Antes J. and Paranica, J. (2009) ‘The promise of mediation for North Dakota’ North

Dakota Law Review, 85:3, 659-704..

Arnold, J. (2000). ‘Mediator Insight: Disputants' perceptions of third parties'

knowledge and its effect on mediated negotiation’, International Journal of Conflict

Management, 11:4, 318-336.

Arnold J. and O'Connor K. (2006). ‘How negotiator self-efficacy drives decisions to

pursue mediation’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36:11, 2649-2669.

Barrett, J. (1999). ‘In search of the Rosetta Stone of the Mediation Profession’,

Negotiation Journal, 15, 219-227.

21

Barsky, A. and Wood L. (2005). ‘Conflict avoidance in a university context’, Higher

Education Research and Development, 24:3, 249-264.

Bellman, H. (1998). ‘Some reflections on the practice of mediation’, Negotiation

Journal, 14, 205-210.

Berggren, K. (2006). ‘Do formal mediation programs work in the settlement of

employee-employer disputes?’ Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar Research

Series.

Bingham, L. (2003). ‘Mediation at work: Transforming workplace conflict at the

United States Postal Service’, IBM Center for Business and Government: Human

Capital Management Series.

Bingham L. (2004). ‘Employment Dispute Resolution: The case for mediation’,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22:1-2, 145-174.

Bingham, L. (2009) ‘The politics of evaluation. Lessons learned from the evaluation of

workplace dispute resolution programs’ Labor and Employment Relations Association

Series. Proceedings from the 59th Annual Meeting.

Bingham, L., Chesmore, G., Moon, Y. and Napoli, L. (2000). ‘Mediating employment

disputes at the United States Postal Service: A comparison of In-House and Outside

Neutral Mediator models’, Review of Public Personnel Administration, 20:1, 5-19.

Bingham, L., Kim, K., and Raines, S. (2002). ‘Exploring the role of representation in

employment mediation at the USPS’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 17:2,

341-377.

22

Bingham L., Hallberlin, C., Walker, D. and Chung, W. (2009). ‘Dispute System Design

and Justice in Employment Dispute Resolution: Mediation at the Workplace’,

Harvard Negotiation Law Review, 14, 1-50.

Bingham, L. and Pitts, D. (2002). ‘Highlights of mediation at work: studies of the

national REDRESS evaluation project’, Negotiation Journal, 18, 149-160.

Bingham L. and Novac, M. (2001). ‘Mediation's impact on formal discrimination

complaint filing: Before and after the REDRESS Program and the United States Postal

Service’ , Review of Public Personnel Administration, 21:4, 308-331.

Bond, C. (1997). ‘Shattering the Myth: Mediating Sexual Harassment Disputes in the

Workplace’, Fordham Law Review, May 1997, 1-43.

Boulle L. (1999). ‘Minding the Gaps – Reflecting on the story of Australian

mediation’, Bond Law Review, 11:2, 216.

Bowling D. and Hoffman D. (2003). Bringing Peace Into The Room: The personal

qualities of the mediator and their impact on the mediation, San Francisco: Jossey

Bass.

Brett J. and Goldberg S. (1983). ‘Grievance mediation in the coal industry: a field

experiment’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 37:1, 49-69.

Brett, J., Barsness, Z. and Goldberg, S. (1996). ‘The effectiveness of mediation: an

independent analysis of cases handled by four major service providers’, Negotiation

Journal, 12, 259-269.

Bush R. (2001). ‘Handling Workplace Mediation: why transformative mediation?’,

HOFSTRA Labor and Employment Law Journal, 18:2, 367-374.

23

Bush, R. and Folger J. (2005). The Promise of Mediation: responding to conflict

through empowerment and recognition, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Carter, S. (1999). ‘The importance of party buy-in in designing organisational conflict

management systems’, Mediation Quarterly, 17, 61-66.

CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) (2004). Managing Conflict

at Work, London: CIPD.

CIPD (2007). Managing Conflict at Work, London: CIPD.

CIPD (2008). Workplace mediation – how employers do it?, London: CIPD.

Cohen, O., Dattner, N. and Luxenburg, A. (1999). ‘The limits if the mediator's

neutrality’, Mediation Quarterly, 16:4, 341-348.

Corby, S. (1999). Resolving employment rights disputes through mediation: the New

Zealand experience, London: Institute of Employment Rights.

Della Noce, D. (2004). ‘From practice to theory to practice: a brief retrospective on

the transformative mediation model’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 19:3,

925-936.

Dolder C, (2004). ‘The contribution of mediation to workplace justice’, Industrial Law

Journal, 33, 320.

Fox, M. (2005). Evaluation of the Acas pilot of mediation and employment law visits

to small companies, Acas Research and Evaluation.

Gewurz, I. (2001). ‘(Re)designing mediation to address the nuances of power

imbalance’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 19:2, 135-162.

24

Gibbons, M. (2007). A review of employment dispute resolution in Great Britain,

London: DTI.

Goldberg, S. (2005). ‘How interest based grievance mediation performs in the long

term’, Dispute Resolution Journal, 60:4, 8-15.

Green, M. (2005). ‘Tackling employment discrimination with ADR: Does mediation

offer a shield for the haves or real opportunities for the have-nots?’, Berkeley Journal

of Employment & Labor Law, 26:2, 321-361.

Greig, M. (2005). ‘Stepping into the fray: when do mediators mediate?’, American

Journal of Political Science, 49:2, 249-266.

Hallberlin, C. (2001). ‘Transforming workplace culture through mediation: lessons

learned from swimming upstream’, HOFSTRA Labor and Employment Law Journal,

18:2, 375-384.

Harris, L., Tuckman, A., Snook, J., Tailby, S., Hutchinson, S., and Winters, J. (2008).

Small Firms and Workplace Disputes Resolution, Acas Research Paper 01/08.

Hebert L. (1999). ‘Establishing and evaluating a workplace mediation pilot project: an

Ohio case study’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 14:2, 415-480.

Herr, K. (2005). ‘Administrators mandating mediation: tools of institutional violence

cloaked in the discourse of reconciliation’, International Journal of Leadership in

Education, 8:1, 21-33.

Herrman M. (2006). The Blackwell Handbook of Mediation, Bridging Theory and

Practice, Malden, MA: Blackwell

25

Herrman, M., Hollet, N., Eaker, D. and Gale, J. (2003). ‘Mediator Reflections on

Practice: Connecting Select Demographics and Preferred Orientation’, Conflict

Resolution Quarterly, 20:4, 403-427.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. and Hogan, J. (1994). ‘What we know about leadership:

Effectiveness and personality’, American Psychologist, 49, 493-504.

Hoskins, M. and Stoltz, J. (2003). ‘Balancing on Words: Human Change Process in

Mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20:3, 331-349.

Jameson, J. (1996). ‘Why managers can mediate: a re-examination of the literature

on managerial third party intervention’, Paper presented to the Commission on

Training and Development at the Annual convention of the Speech Communication

Association, Nov 23-26, 1996, San Diego.

Johnson, M., Levine, S. and Richard, L. (2003). ‘Emotionally Intelligent Mediation:

Four Key Competencies’, in D. Bowling and D. Hoffman, Bringing Peace Into The

Room: The Personal Qualities of the Mediator and their Impact on the Mediation, San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Johnston, T. (2008). Knowledge and use of mediation in SMEs, Acas Research Paper,

02/08.

Jones, T. and Bodtker, A. (2001). ‘Mediating with heart in mind’, Negotiation Journal,

17, 217-244.

Karambayya, R., Brett, J. and Lyle A. (1992). ‘The effects of formal authority and

experience on third-party roles, outcome and perception of fairness’, Academy of

Management Journal, 35, 426-438.

Karambayya R. and Brett J. (1989). ‘Managers handling disputes: Third party roles

and perceptions of fairness’, Academy of Management Journal, 32, 867-704.

26

Kersley, B., Alpin, C., Forth, J., Bryson, A., Bewley, H., Dix, G. and Oxenbridge, S.

(2006). Inside the Workplace: Findings from the 2004 Workplace Employment

Relations Survey, London: Routledge.

Knight, K. and Latreille, P. (2000). 'Discipline, Dismissals and Complaints to

Employment Tribunals', British Journal of Industrial Relations, 38:4, 533-555.

Kressel, K. (2006). ‘Mediation revisited’, in M. Deutsch and P. Coleman, The

Handbook of Constructive Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, San Francisco:

Jossey Bass

Kressel, K. (2007). ‘The strategic style in mediation’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly,

24:3, 251-283.

Kolb, D. (1981) ‘Roles Mediators Play: State and Federal Practice’, Industrial

Relations, 20:1, 1-17.

Kydd, A. (2003). ‘Which side are you on? Bias, credibility and mediation’, American

Journal of Political Science, 47:4, 597-611.

Kydd, A. (2006). ‘When can mediators build trust?’, American Political Science

Review, 100:3, 449-462.

LaRue, H. (2000). ‘The changing workplace environment in the new millennium: ADR

is a dominant trend in the workplace’, Columbia Business Law Review, 2000, 453-

498.

Lipsky, D. and Avgar A. (2004). ‘Commentary: research on employment dispute

resolution: towards a new paradigm’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22:1-2, 175-189.

27

Lipsky, D. and Avgar A. (2008). ‘Towards a Strategic Theory of Workplace Conflict

Management’, Ohio State Journal of Dispute Resolution, 24:1, 143–190.

Lipsky, D. and Seeber, R. (2001). ‘Resolving workplace disputes in the United States:

The growth of alternative dispute resolution in employment relations’, Journal of

Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2:3, Fall, 2000.

McDermott, P., Obar, R., Jose, A. and Bowers, M. (2000). An evaluation of the equal

employment opportunity commission mediation program, US Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/report/index.html

[accessed 19/6/07]

McDermott, P., Obar, R., Jose, A. and Polkinghorn, B. (2001). The EEOC Mediation

Program: Mediators’ perspective on the parties, processes and outcome. US Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission.

http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/mcdfinal.html [accessed 19/6/07]

Mahoney D. and Klass, B. (2008). ‘Comparative Dispute Resolution in the Workplace’,

Journal of Labor Reseach, 29, 251-271.

Mareschal, P. (2002a). ‘Mastering the art of dispute resolution: best practices from

the FMCS’, International Journal of Public Administration, 25, 1351-1377.

Mareschal, P. (2002b). ‘Resolving conflict: tactics of federal mediators’, Advances in

Industrial and Labor Relations, 11, 41-68.

Mareschal, P. (2005). ‘Building a better future through mediation: insights from a

survey of FMCS mediators’, Journal of Collective Negotiations, 30:4, 307-323.

Miller, P. (2001). ‘A Just Alternative or Just an Alternative? Mediation and the

Americans with Disabilities Act’, Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 1-8.

28

Montoya, J. (1998). ‘Let's mediate: a whole new ball game for the EEOC?’, Employee

Relations Law Journal, 24:2, 53-71.

Moore, C. (2003). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict,

San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Picard, C. (2004). ‘Exploring an integrative framework for understanding mediation’,

Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21:3, 295-311.

Pope, S. (1996). ‘Inviting fortuitous events in mediation: the role of empowerment

and recognition’, Mediation Quarterly, 13:4, 287-295.

Reynolds, C. (2000). ‘Workplace Mediation’ in M. Liebmann, Mediation in Context,

London: Jessica Kingsley.

Riskin, L. (2003). ‘Decision making in mediation: the new old grid and the new grid

system’ Notre Dame Law Review, 79:1, 1-53.

Sanders, A. (2009). ‘Part One of the Employment Act 2008: ‘Better’ Dispute

Resolution’, Industrial Law Journal, 38:1, 30-49.

Schreier, L. (2002). ‘Emotional intelligence and mediation training’, Conflict

Resolution Quarterly, 20:1, 99-119.

Seargeant, J. (2005). The Acas small firms mediation pilot: research to explore

parties' experiences and views on the value of mediation, Acas research and

evaluation.

Shapiro, D. & Brett, J. (1993). ‘Comparing three processes underlying judgments of

procedural justice: A field study of mediation and arbitration’, Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 55:6, 1167-1177.

29

Sherman, M. (1995). ‘Is there a mediator in the house?’, Dispute Resolution Journal,

50:2, 30-45.

Sherman, M. (2003). ‘Mediation, hype and hyperbole: How much should we

believe?’, Dispute Resolution Journal, 58:3, 43-51.

Silberman, A. (1989). ‘Breaking the mould of grievance resolution: a pilot program in

mediation’ Arbitration Journal, 44:4, 40-45.

Singh, R. (1986). ‘Mediation in industrial disputes in Britain’, Industrial Relations

Journal, 17:1, 24-31.

Singletary, C., Shearer, R. and Kuligokski, E. (1995). ‘Securing a durable mediation

agreement to settle complex employment disputes’, Labor Law Journal, 46, 223-227.

Stallworth, L., McPherson, T. and Rute L. (2001). ‘Discrimination in the workplace:

how mediation can help’, Dispute Resolution Journal, 56:1, 35-44.

Suliman, A. and Abdulla, M. (2005). ‘Towards a high performance workplace:

managing corporate climate and conflict’, Management Decision, 43:5, 720-733.

Sulzner, G. (2003). ‘Adjudicators (arbitrators) acting as mediators: an experiment in

dispute resolution at the Public Service Staff Relations Board of Canada’, Journal of

Collective Negotiations in the Public Sector, 30, 59-75.

Tillett , G. (1999). Resolving conflict: a practical approach, 2nd edition, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Tjersland, O. (1997). ‘Strategies in mediation explored and developed during a

research project’, Mediation Quarterly, 15:2, 105-117.

30

Van Gramberg, B. (2006). ‘The rhetoric and reality of workplace alternative dispute

resolution’, Journal of Industrial Relations, 48:2, 175-191.

Wall, J., Stark, J. and Standifer, R. (2001). ‘Mediation: a current review and theory

development’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45:3, 370-391.

Winslade, J. (2006). ‘Mediation with a focus on discursive positioning’, Conflict

Resolution Quarterly, 23:4, 501-515.

Winslade, J. and Monk G. (2000). Narrative Mediation, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Wiseman V. and Poitras, J. (2002). ‘Mediation within a hierarchical structure: how

can it be done successfully’, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 20:1, 51-65.

Wood, D. and Leon, D. (2006). ‘Measuring value in mediation: a case study of

workplace mediation in city government’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution,

21:2, 383-408.

Young, P. (2006). ‘Take It or Leave It. Lump It or Grieve It: Designing Mediator

Complaint Systems that Protect Mediators, Unhappy Parties, Attorneys, Courts, the

Process and the Field’, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21:3, 1-18.

31