Mediation is a voluntary process where a third party provides impartial facilitation with the intention of trying to resolve a disagreement between individuals. The mediator should be independent of the individuals and issues, although this does not mean that they must be external to the organisation. In some situations an internal mediator can be helpful (in part because of their understanding of the organisational context). In certain cases, HR professionals may act as mediators although it is important to avoid any tensions with their other responsibilities in a dispute situation. Whatever the background, it is important to make sure that the mediator is appropriately trained. 

Mediation should be: 

• Voluntary.
• Impartial.
• Solutions-focused.
• Empathetic – workplace conflict is stressful for both parties.
• Non-judgmental – it is rare for people to raise issues unless they genuinely believe them to have some basis. 
• Morally but not legally binding.

There are several different approaches to mediation but for most workplace situations a ‘facilitative approach’ can be helpful. This involves the mediator taking a leading but impartial role in trying to resolve the situation, for example by questioning both sides to understand the real nature of the problem and prompting the parties to consider possible options. The aim is that the presence of the mediator will help the individuals see matters more objectively and reach a solution which is acceptable to both.  

Care needs to be taken that the mediator is not taking over the process and directing the parties to a particular solution. The parties should own the process and any eventual agreement. 

Mediation will be most useful where there has been a breakdown in relationships, a clash of personalities or a strong difference of opinion on work issues. In such situations mediation can enable both parties to see the other perspective.  

It can also be used in low-level situations of unfair treatment where the alleged perpetrator has not understood that their behaviour can be categorised as bullying or harassment and they are unaware of the impact of their behaviour. Mediation can help the alleged perpetrator understand the implications of their behaviour and take responsibility for improving their conduct.  

It’s important to remember that it’s up to the parties involved to retain ownership of any solutions suggested through mediation and to ensure these are implemented effectively. 

Where used appropriately and effectively, mediation can bring a range of benefits to the individual and organisation, such as: 

• When used at an early stage of a dispute, it can nip unhealthy conflict in the bud.
• It can repair relationships before they break down irrecoverably.
• It is a cheaper, quicker and less stressful alternative to formal procedures such as grievance and an employment tribunal claim.
• It can explore and resolve any underlying difficulties in the employment relationship that are often not covered in a formal procedure.
• It can be empowering as it enables parties to ‘own’ the process and agreement.
• It can help to promote a positive, problem-solving approach to employment relations and build a more open and inclusive culture.

Mediation is less likely to be helpful where the dispute is around interpretation of company rules, policies and procedures, and/or where there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ outcome needed from the dispute. Here it is often more appropriate to investigate the facts of a particular case using grievance procedures.  

Often, there are underlying issues which may not be articulated as part of the complaint or disagreement, for example a personality clash or something that happened in the past. In this situation, mediation is unlikely to satisfactorily resolve the deeper areas of conflict unless they are addressed as part of the mediation. One useful test is to ask: if this matter went through a formal process and was decided in favour of one party or the other, would it resolve the underlying issue? If the answer is “no”, then considering mediation might be a sensible approach.  

There are some situations where mediation is not appropriate, for example:  

• if one party is not willing to engage with the process
• if a manager seeks to use it instead of carrying out their managerial responsibilities
• if a decision of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is needed, rather than settling a difference of opinion – for example, where there has been a breach of the employment contract or the dispute involves a criminal act
• where the allegation is serious, for example a serious complaint of sexual harassment
• if one of the parties is vulnerable, for example an individual is experiencing poor mental health.

Mediation can be used at any stage, providing any formal process is put to one side while it takes place. However, mediation is more likely to be successful the earlier it is introduced, before attitudes and views have become fixed and it is difficult to find areas of common understanding. Encouraging the parties to consider mediation if informal attempts have been unsuccessful, and before positions have become entrenched and a dispute has become formalised, may be more likely to result in a positive outcome. In certain situations mediation can be used to rebuild relationships after a dispute has been resolved or finalised. 

Mediation shouldn’t replace attempts by managers to resolve issues early but ideally it should be considered if initial attempts at early resolution have failed. Sometimes HR professionals and managers may not be aware of tensions or disagreements until matters have reached a head between the individuals. It is important to train and guide managers so that they consider mediation as an option if faced with a dispute between employees. Encouraging line managers to discuss issues with HR, and for HR business partners to develop an early awareness of issues, can help to reduce this possibility.  

HR professionals are responsible at a strategic level for developing a convincing business case to introduce mediation by outlining how it fits with the organisation’s values and business goals. They should articulate to senior management how mediation could help to identify and manage unhealthy conflict and foster a more productive employment relations climate. This involves analysing the organisation’s current individual dispute resolution procedures and designing a mediation approach that promotes early conflict resolution. This is likely to involve the re-drafting of key policies and processes related to grievance and discipline to ensure that mediation is considered as early as possible in a dispute.  

An important aspect of introducing mediation is exploring the type of model that will fit with the organisation’s size, culture and employment relations framework. HR professionals need to explore potential options, for example an internal scheme versus external mediation, as well as the critical success factors that will help to embed mediation across the organisation. They also need to consider the resources needed to implement mediation such as:

• initial and ongoing promotion
• training and development
• overall responsibility for operating mediation
• how the scheme will be reviewed.  

HR professionals should also examine the wider organisational context to ensure that it supports the effective use of mediation, such as:

• consulting with employee representatives, including with those from a recognised trade union and a staff forum, to gain buy-in for mediation and consult on how it will be used 
• reviewing the competencies and training of people managers, to ensure they are knowledgeable about the mediation process and how it can be best used in their team. 

Someone in HR should have knowledge of mediation and ongoing responsibility for overseeing how mediation is used to its best advantage. This could involve liaising with mediators in particular situations if a case is particularly complex or sensitive, for example if there are implications relating to breach of contract and/or a contractual issue. However, it’s important to remember that confidentiality must be respected and is central to people having trust in mediation. Ultimately, trust should be placed with the mediators who should be trained and qualified to make judgement calls on issues like whether cases are suitable for mediation.  

In some organisations with internal mediation schemes, HR professionals are trained and act as mediators. It’s for each organisation to decide if this is suitable, bearing in mind that it’s imperative that employees view mediators as impartial and independent of any formal HR process. It’s important to develop guidelines to help mediators and employees understand when mediation is and isn’t helpful to resolve workplace disputes. 

From senior leaders

The wider organisational benefits of mediation should form part of the business case to gain buy-in from senior leaders to invest in mediation. It should be positioned as part of a strategic approach to managing conflict and fostering a healthy employment relations climate. Encouraging early conflict resolution approaches like mediation can help to save valuable management time investigating and managing formal complaints. It can also help boost employee engagement, minimise stress and sickness absence and build productive team relationships. There is also the potential to develop the skills of employees, through training internal mediators as well as the wider development of people management capability. 

To develop a convincing case for mediation, the proposal should set out how mediation can help to reinforce the organisation’s values, such as ‘collaboration’. It should also set out potential benefits, for example by including a brief impact assessment. This should include the scope to improve outcomes in key areas such as: 

• the number of employee complaints and tribunal cases
• the resources and management time spent on resolving formal complaints
• employee engagement or attitude survey results
• any associated employee sickness absence and retention rates.

From managers 

Line managers play a key role in managing conflict and in encouraging employees to view mediation as a helpful way to resolve individual differences. They have day-to-day responsibility for managing people and should know if there are underlying tensions in their team. They should also have trust-based relationships with people, and so need to be aware of ongoing concerns and alert to a disagreement that could escalate. It’s important that HR communicates the potential benefits of using mediation to managers, so that they are willing to promote it in their teams as a productive way of resolving conflict, if possible, at an early stage.  

From employees

Employees also need to understand how mediation can help them avoid the stress and worry typically associated with a formal complaint. This means explaining the aims of mediation and how it works, as well as their role in the process. It’s important to point out the potential advantages to individuals: 

• It offers a confidential and flexible way of discussing and resolving a disagreement.
• It’s usually a much quicker and simpler approach to solving the problem.
• The process can be empowering as it enables parties to resolve their disagreement.
• It often helps to repair relationships where these are broken down, whereas positions tend to become more entrenched in a formal procedure.
• It avoids the potentially damaging impact of pursuing a formal complaint, eg on career, wider relationships and wellbeing.

Many organisational policies dealing with conflict often move straight from informal discussion between the parties to formal processes. Mediation, if mentioned at all, is often considered an ad-hoc approach following an investigation or hearing. 

To make the most of early conflict resolution processes like mediation, organisations should consider including the option of mediation before formal processes start, so that it can be considered in a wider range of cases. Once a formal process (such as discipline or grievance) has begun, positions are likely to become fixed and the scope for resolution and compromise reduced.  

If your organisation has a recognised trade union(s) and/or a staff forum with non-union employee representatives, it’s best to discuss any plans to develop a mediation model with them at the outset. By engaging with representatives and communicating the aims and benefits of mediation at an early stage, the organisation is more likely to gain their support for mediation. In some organisations trade union representatives even act as mediators and help to promote the scheme. 

It’s important to develop a mediation model that’s appropriate for your organisation. This could be developing an internal mediation scheme and/or using a commercial external mediation firm when needed. However, there is no reason why an organisation can’t develop both approaches as they are not mutually exclusive. There could be occasions where one or other approach is more suitable for a particular situation.  

When deciding whether to develop an internal or external mediation model, there are several factors to consider: 

• What are the organisation’s objectives in introducing mediation? If it is to provide expertise to settle a one-off complex dispute, using an external mediator as part of a call-on/call-off arrangement could be more helpful. However, if the aim is to foster a positive employment relations climate of problem-solving, collaboration and early conflict resolution then developing the skills of internal mediators and championing an internal scheme will help to embed this culture.
• Size of organisation – if the workforce is small, external mediation is more appropriate as it can be challenging to appoint internal mediators who are independent of the parties and can play an impartial role.
• Cost – developing an internal mediation scheme involves more investment initially from, for example, time researching, designing and implementing a suitable approach and training mediators, but it could be more cost-effective in the long term.
• Employment relations framework – an internal mediation scheme is more likely to be successful if there are already effective procedures to deal with employee complaints and a clear focus on preventing and challenging inappropriate behaviour such as bullying and harassment.
• People management approach – an internal scheme will bed in more easily if there are capable and confident line managers who are open, approachable, and can resolve conflict at an early stage; if this is not the case one option could be to trial external mediation and use positive results to build the foundations to introduce an internal scheme.
• Culture – all types of mediation will have more impact if there’s already a collaborative and inclusive climate in the organisation and a clear focus on equality, dignity and respect, as well as people’s health and wellbeing.

In choosing an external mediator or mediation firm it is important to consider:

• Reputation and credentials: Although there is no requirement for a mediator to hold a particular qualification or accreditation, it’s wise to select a provider that has positive testimonials and has undergone training, for example from Acas.
• Cultural fit: Do the values of the external provider match those of the organisation?
• Cost: An external mediator will be a direct financial cost. However, the benefits of a successful mediation may far outweigh the costs (as shown by the Acas report on the costs of workplace conflict).
• Availability: If both parties have agreed to mediation it is sensible to start the process as soon as possible, to avoid issues becoming worse or one of the parties having second thoughts.

For some issues, you may also want to have a mediator who has some experience of the subject causing the conflict – for example someone from a particular cultural background or community.  

A smaller organisation may find it more helpful to use the services of an external mediator, either on an ad hoc basis or as part of a ‘call-on/call-off’ arrangement. There may be instances where a larger organisation may also feel it’s more helpful to use an external mediator – for example, if the dispute is particularly complex, or involves senior employees, or a group of employees.

Introducing an internal mediation scheme will give the organisation an opportunity to foster an employment relations climate based on early resolution. The wider organisational context is important for influencing the take up and success of mediation. Mediation is more likely to be effective if it’s introduced as part of an employment relations framework that encourages problem solving, and is part of a systematic approach to conflict management. 

Internal mediation is a more cost-effective and sustainable approach but will only be suitable if the organisation is large enough for mediators to be independent of the parties involved in a dispute. It also provides the opportunity to upskill employees to act as mediators. Internal mediators are also more likely to have a better understanding of whether suggested solutions are viable in the organisational context. Running an internal scheme will also require support from the leadership team and ongoing commitment by the organisation to operate the scheme, promote it across the workforce and keep the training and involvement of mediators up to date.  

One key advantage of mediation over a formal process is that it can be set in motion quickly and offer a speedy resolution. Therefore, the process needs to be managed within a reasonable timeline to help avoid any conflict escalating. Mediations tend to take place over a day or two but there is no set timeframe and sometimes there will be several meetings over a period of a few weeks. The length of time it takes to conclude a mediation will depend on each case, and flexibility needs to be built into the process to allow for the level of complexity as well as people’s emotional states. For example, it can take time for one party to appreciate the other point of view and/or feelings. Mediation can be an intense experience and a mediator may need to build in additional time to reflect and/or for separate conversations to take place if other issues are unearthed as part of the process. 

As a first step, a mediator will speak to both parties and set out the basic process of mediation and what to expect. Typically, the mediator will first meet both parties separately to hear their views and concerns about the issue, before facilitating a meeting together. These initial conversations will also help to establish a likely timeframe. The mediator should make clear to both parties that they are entering voluntarily into the process and that they can withdraw at any stage. 

If the joint discussion takes place in person, it’s best to find a neutral location to help the parties feel at ease. Although face-to-face mediation is often preferred because it’s easier to build rapport, this may not always be practical if one or both parties work remotely. If the mediation takes place online, the mediator will need to think carefully about how to foster a rapport with the individuals.

If one party has a representative (such as a trade union) the mediator may want to clarify their role and how they will be involved in the process. It could be that the representative attends the initial meeting but does not take part in the main mediation as it can unbalance the process. The aim is for the parties to equally develop and reach an agreement on a solution so that they ‘own’ it.  

However, there could be exceptions where representation is needed, for example if a participant is vulnerable, or is disabled and needs their carer in attendance, or if an interpreter is needed. 

The facilitator will guide the mediation and hopefully the parties will reach an agreement. If this is the case, the mediator will help them to review and agree it at the end of the process. However, sometimes there is no tangible agreement, but the process has enabled the parties to air their differences, acknowledge each other’s point of view and establish a more amicable working relationship.  

Sometimes mediation can break down and it’s clear that conversations aren’t going to help develop an agreed solution. One of the parties could decide to withdraw from the process at any point, or the mediator could decide that it’s best to halt. For example, a serious allegation of an unlawful act could emerge, or one of the parties could be too distressed or act too inappropriately for the mediation to continue.

The success of the mediation process relies on trust. Take care to ensure that the process is confidential – typically issues can arise in mediation that need to stay within the process, particularly if they involve other employees. No details of the agreement should be shared with HR or with participants’ line managers unless agreed by the parties, although HR should be able to collect baseline data on whether the mediation was successful or not. 

Occasionally the parties may develop a solution which has wider organisational consequences (for example, a new flexible working arrangement) and this may need to be discussed with HR before it is implemented. If this is the case, the mediator should seek agreement from the parties before sharing information that was discussed in the mediation. The only other exception to confidentiality is where a potentially unlawful act comes to light, or there is a serious risk to someone’s health, safety or welfare.  

Responsibility for administering, championing and monitoring the scheme needs to be assigned to HR professionals, who need to report back on its effectiveness. These duties and responsibilities need to be adequately factored into the employee’s role. Ideally, more than one HR practitioner needs to assume responsibility for the scheme because if one individual leaves there could be a risk to the scheme’s continuity.

Typically, employees can volunteer to become mediators and HR should encourage expressions of interest from all levels and sections of the business. Managers could also be encouraged to nominate people who they think would have the skills and competence to be effective mediators. Where employees can self-nominate, develop a brief role profile and basic criteria so that individuals can assess their suitability. Desirable qualities and competencies could include:

• active listening
• approachable
• building rapport
• communication
• empathetic
• facilitation
• impartial
• non-judgemental
• objectivity
• problem-solving
• professional
• questioning
• reflecting. 

Internal mediators should be appropriately trained, so learning and development budgets need to reflect this. They will also need appropriate time off to carry out training and mediations, and so HR needs to gain the buy-in from managers across the organisation. Mediators can come from all parts of the business and may include shopfloor workers and possibly trade union officials as well as those in a managerial or supervisory role.  

Acas offers an internal mediation training course – the Certificate in Internal Workplace Mediation – and this may be useful for developing your internal mediators and ensuring they have the skills, knowledge and confidence to carry out effective mediations. 

Line managers need to understand the value of mediation and their role in managing conflict at work. Their commitment is needed so that they can be champions for mediation and other early conflict resolution approaches.  

Guidelines and/or training for line managers should help them to understand if mediation is appropriate in certain situations. If they are involved in the conflict, it should help them be open to the option of mediation. Without this commitment and understanding, mediation is unlikely to be advocated or made use of by employees.

Line managers are more likely to appreciate its relevance and champion its use if they are trained in early conflict resolution skills.

Employees need guidance so they can understand mediation as a step-by-step process and what mediation can and cannot achieve. Before entering mediation as participants, the parties need to know what to expect and be comfortable with their role in the process. Each party should feel committed to reaching a solution and be open to listening to the other party’s perspective.

As with any other process, organisations should assess whether mediation is effective. This could include reviewing:

• How often is mediation used to resolve individual issues?
• Has mediation reduced the number of formal processes (grievances etc)?
• How often does mediation result in an agreed way forward?
• Does the agreed solution work in resolving the issue in the long term?
• Are there any wider organisational implications of the results of mediation such as cost reduction?

Evaluation should focus on long-term impact rather than just immediate resolutions to conflicts. Although no details should be kept of the issue discussed in the mediation, the HR professional or mediation coordinator could follow up with participants and their line manager at a later stage to see if they were satisfied with the outcome and its impact on working relationships.

Acas What mediation is and how it can help - Mediation at work - Acas 
GOV.UK Solve a workplace dispute: Mediation, conciliation and arbitration
Civil Mediation Council Workplace Mediation — Civil Mediation 
CIPD Mediation factsheet 
CIPD Conflict management survey report