Commercial and Workplace Mediation – Perspectives from Organisational Psychology
Organisational psychology aims to understand and improve individual and group behaviour within an organisational context – in particular the workplace. Mediation focuses on the resolution of conflict through the facilitation of communication, amongst other things. As a student of both fields, I thought it might be helpful to examine some of the ways in which organisational psychology can offer relevant perspectives to those practicing in the field of mediation.
The Psychological Contract
As a starting point, it is recognized that an employee’s expectations and beliefs about the nature of rights and obligations set out in the employment contract can often deviate – sometimes significantly – from the terms of the document itself. It is as if there are two agreements – the written contract and what we term the psychological contract.
This matters. When we mediators try to uncover the root causes of conflict, it is important not just to review the legal documents (as a court might), but also to understand the ways in which the expectations of the parties deviate from the contract. Perhaps there are ‘psychological contracts’ on both sides. And in cultural contexts where reliance on verbal agreements sometimes supplants the written word, the scope for misunderstanding can be even greater. It is often the gap – or gulf – between the status quo and the psychological contract that we need to bridge to facilitate a settlement.
Mediation as Change Management
At the outset of a mediation process, there exists a dispute, frequently accompanied by stress, anger, denial or other heightened emotional states. At the end, we seek resolution – settlement – which, it is hoped, will bring the parties a measure of relief, acceptance, and closure.
We can view mediation, therefore, as an exercise in change management. There exists a multiplicity of theories of change management, but some themes are common to virtually all. Firstly, the need for good communication to establish a mutual agreement of the benefits of the targeted end-state. Additionally, good managers of change know that the process takes time. A mediation usually comprises some preparation time ahead of the mediation day, and then the day itself. Legal representatives can do much to ensure that the process of emotional change is already well under way by the time the mediation day commences, and by continuing to support (alongside the mediator) that process of change during the day itself.
Understanding Motivation
When considering the drivers of motivation in the workplace, organisational psychologists often make a primary distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. That is, the motivation that stems from the financial rewards which accrue to the employee, as opposed to the motivation from simply doing and enjoying the job. The key point here is that it is not always just about the money. In fact, intrinsic motivation is very often the major driver. In the context of mediation, this suggests that we should continue to keep non-monetary factors in view throughout the process, and especially when it appears that deadlock is looming. Reputation, ongoing relationships, or simply being heard can sometimes make the difference between settlement and breakdown.
My favourite theory of (intrinsic) workplace motivation – Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory – posits three factors in roles which combine to drive greater motivation in those undertaking them: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. To me, the first two in particular underpin one of the greatest aspects of mediation; namely, the agency of the parties in reaching their own settlement, as opposed to one handed down from on high. The skilled mediator will harness that agency, and in doing so further motivate the parties to find accord.
The Mediator as Leader
Leaders need followers. Followers require leaders. And just as power imbalances exist in the workplace, so too in mediations. At the outset of the mediation day, the mediator needs to establish their authority, and hence the parties and their representatives must in a sense be followers. As the day progresses, however, the roles evolve, and often the parties will (agency again!) take a more active role in driving and shaping the process. A confident mediator will gradually ‘hand over the reins’ in such a circumstance.
At the same time, the mediator’s power as leader is vital in cases where a power imbalance exists between the parties – and therefore the leader/follower balance must sometimes be carefully calibrated.
Learning and Development
Finally – learning and development. It is still not uncommon to encounter legal representatives taking part in a mediation for the first time. For at least one of the parties, it is extremely common that they are entirely new to the process. The best organizations never leave learning and development to chance, and nor should those entering mediation. A structured approach to preparation – for both the parties and their representatives – undoubtedly enhances the chances of a satisfactory outcome. Be it in terms of submissions ahead of the day, the benefits of joint sessions, or management of emotions throughout, all participants can be coached to maximise the opportunity that mediation presents.
Conclusion
The field of organisational psychology has many insights to offer us as mediators, five of which I have identified here. In future posts, I’ll examine each of these topics individually in greater detail.
29th January 2024