Procedure of a mediation

A clear framework is important for mediation in order to give all parties involved guidance and protection in dealing with their conflict. A suitable location, sufficient time and quiet, well-trained mediators and rules for dealing with each other form the secure framework for mediation.

A key success factor of mediation (and mediative conflict management in general) is its structure, especially its division into phases (usually five) as well as careful preparation and follow-up. You can find background information on this on this page.

If you want to deal with a specific conflict, we will be happy to guide you safely through the process.

Get in touch with us!

Orientation and protection

The secure framework that we guarantee you for your mediation consists of many elements.

Firstly, there is the formal structure that guides us and you through the process. Then there is the careful clarification of the mandate before the mediation and at the beginning of the mediation to ensure that we all agree on where we are going. And we work in neutral rooms outside the context of your conflict, often in conference hotels or, for the Karlsruhe area, in our own offices.

And above all: as conflict experts, we will guide you safely through the mediation process with our specialized expertise in conflict management. We have experience with heated and frozen conflicts, with few and many participants, with high material values or important relationships, and are well equipped for this with our training and studies. And we know how to deal with unexpected escalations confidently and profitably.

You decide what is discussed

Dealing with conflicts is not always pleasant. It is therefore all the more important that we establish a framework for discussion with you that allows you to address unpleasant topics as far as you wish. It is often the aspects of a conflict that are unpleasant, perhaps embarrassing or very annoying that make the greatest contribution to really reaching an understanding, clarifying misunderstandings and finding new ways forward.

However, we know that not everything you think (or feel) should always be revealed, especially in a work context. That's why we only work with the topics you name and only in the depth that seems right to you.

We offer you all a reliable and unencumbered framework within which you determine the content and results. We would be happy to explain this to you in a non-binding discussion.

 

Mediation is the only process that works on the factual and relationship levels simultaneously and with all parties involved. It is successful if it is possible to make the actual interests of the parties involved mutually understandable and thus find new, sustainable solutions. Of course, this can only be achieved on a firm foundation. That is why the actual mediation is always preceded by a careful clarification of the assignment: What do you need, what can we offer, how can we best approach this?

"External" order clarification beforehand

In the case of conflicts at the highest management level or between private individuals, we clarify the assignment with the conflict parties, sometimes by telephone in advance, but at the latest at the start of the mediation. In the case of conflicts in hierarchical systems, our first point of contact is the responsible manager. Together with the manager, it is important to find out whether mediation in the narrower sense is called for, whether a whole team clarification or, on the contrary, only support for the manager in conflict coaching is appropriate, or whether there are other methods (see the website www.einigungshilfe.de). Sometimes a complex conflict analysis has to be carried out before we can make a well-founded recommendation on how to proceed with conflict resolution.

"Internal" clarification of the mandate at the start of mediation

Mediation begins with a clarification of the content of the mandate. Despite all the differences in interests, the parties to the conflict are generally united by the desire to find a solution, to put the (working) relationship on a healthy footing and then to have time and energy for other tasks again. In a dispute about responsibilities, for example, the common goal is to establish clarity about these responsibilities and to take into account the respective (very different!) interests. This usually results in the desire to be able to present one's own position in detail and to really understand each other's interests - beyond the misunderstandings that usually arise in conflicts.

This does not resolve the conflict. However, establishing this common ground often takes the pressure off and paves the way for the further phases of mediation, right through to a joint solution.
 

In practically all conflicts, it is important for the parties to be able to explain their point of view, and often they also want to finally understand what makes the other person "tick". This is difficult in an escalated situation: anyone who is angry or afraid will find it difficult to explain their point of view carefully, let alone listen to the other party calmly. This becomes easier if a common goal for the mediation was found in phase 1 and a result is conceivable.

Now the mediator will ask more detailed questions and listen actively in order to

1. make sure that she understands exactly how each party sees the situation, and then
2. to facilitate mutual understanding between the clients.
    

It is not yet a question of being in agreement: different, perhaps even contradictory points of view can become clear. In this way, mutual understanding can grow, e.g. also for any health impairments, and a cooperative atmosphere can develop.

At the end of this phase 2 of mediation, the parties to the conflict will therefore know their (perhaps opposing) positions well and the goal worked out in phase 1 will be more detailed. At the same time, there will now be greater clarity, perhaps one or two misunderstandings will have been clarified and, in any case, an important relief will have been achieved.

In the next step, the underlying interests and needs of those involved can be worked out (phase 3). On this basis, new, previously unthought-of solution options are then found (phase 4) and agreed (phase 5).

After the assignment work (phase 1) and clarification of the situation (phase 2), phase 3 of mediation carefully lays the foundations for conflict resolution: The respective interests and needs behind the entrenched conflict positions are sought and found.

Why is it worth so much to work out the interests and needs in mediation? The positions that are initially in the room are usually irreconcilable: I want "A", but you want "B", and you can't have both at the same time. And we are both angry because we think the other position is wrong, unreasonable, harmful.

But when a mediator asks what exactly I want "A" for and what exactly "B" is important to you for, she is looking at the interests: After all, I don't just want "A", I have good reasons for it, I need "A" for something: namely to fulfill an interest of mine or to satisfy a need. And for the other person, the same applies to position "B".

These interests

1. are usually acceptable to the other party and almost always
2. almost always leave room for new ideas.

So although neither "A" nor "B" becomes reality, there is an option "C" that is acceptable to both me and you, and is often even really good.

Depending on your interests, very different, often surprising solution options emerge in mediation. The best way to find out which of these are feasible and really satisfy the most important interests of the parties involved is to find out for yourself.

Team leader example

Perhaps, as part of a change process, a team leader also wants to have a disciplinary superior function, but the head of department objects. These are two initially irreconcilable positions in a conflict. By asking the question "Why is this important to you?", the mediator will approach the actual interests behind these obviously irreconcilable positions. Instead of yes/no dichotomies, this opens up another solution space: It is possible that the team leader is primarily concerned with respect from his team, while the head of department is concerned with her own proximity to the team members in order to stay informed about the content. The latter could possibly be realized even though she gives the disciplinary superior function to the team leader, e.g. through agreed reporting obligations of the team leader. Or does the head of department consider the team leader to be competent in terms of content, but less so as a manager? Then the formalized role of an "expert" could be suitable for him, who gains the desired respect through substantive competence, but is completely exempt from leadership requirements.

Example of intercultural conflict

The following example of communication in phase 3 of mediation builds on the scenario we described under "intercultural conflicts".

In conflicts, especially intercultural ones, often only the behavior of the other side is visible and leads to irritation if it does not fit in with one's own, unquestioned values. Mediation can often help here. The example is about the new employee, Ms. Özkaya, who hopes to keep her job despite her family burden, and her boss, Ms. Schmidt, who hopes to persuade the employee to work "normally" (in her words). During the discussion about the meaning of "normal", it turns out that they both even have a more ambitious common goal, namely that "Ms. Özkaya contributes to the company with all her strength" (we described how to find the common goal cooperatively despite conflict in phase 1).

In the course of the mediation, the boss notices that her employee becomes more open when she turns to her; the mere fact that she has taken the time for this detailed discussion already opens doors. Ms. Özkaya talks about her family situation. Ms. Schmidt asks uncertainly: "Does this belong here?" She explains that she doesn't want to invade her employees' privacy without being asked. This surprises Ms. Özkaya, for whom personal contact, including questions about the family, is a prerequisite "for normal cooperation". Both of them stiffen and then laugh - there it is again, the word "normal". An understanding is now established and it dawns on the boss that some of her problems with other employees could also be solved here.

However, this does not solve the factual problem. Ms. Schmidt briefly explains why punctuality is important for the success of the company; Ms. Özkaya explains that she cannot leave her parents alone when they are unwell. This is easy for both of them to understand; they now understand each other's values: reliability is also very important to Ms. Özkaya and, conversely, Ms. Schmidt also appreciates loyalty as a value. The interests are recorded on the flipchart (see picture).

Based on this mutual understanding, options for solutions that can satisfy all the interests mentioned are then sought in phase 4 of the mediation.

Of course, the solutions, as well as the interests, are usually more complex than in this example. Nevertheless, 1-2 days are usually enough to resolve even complex conflicts in this way and to be able to work together much more effectively afterwards.

In order for the clients to be successful in phase 4 of the mediation, i.e. in developing and selecting solution options, they must have achieved an actual understanding of each other's underlying motives in phase 3 and have developed a fundamental goodwill towards each other - which usually seemed quite unlikely at the beginning of the mediation (we have already described how this works for the clarification of the mandate, the presentation of perspectives and the clarification of interests).

Ideas for solutions often emerge earlier in the process and are noted down by the mediator. The critical discussion and further development of ideas, and above all the "invention" of new, perhaps even seemingly absurd ideas, only takes place now, in the "land of easy solutions" (Christian Prior). One idea leads to another, and this sometimes results in long lists. Here is an excerpt from the list of ideas developed by Ms. Özkaya and Ms. Schmidt (see example here), in the order in which they occurred to them:

1. Resignation of Ms. Ö., with the support of her boss in the search for a more suitable job outside the company
2. Further training for Ms Ö. in intercultural mediation
3. Further training for Ms. S. in dealing with diversity
4. Hire care service for parents (possibly cost sharing by company)
5. Hiring a brother for Ms. Ö. and job sharing between the two à one is always there and yet one can always be with the parents
6. Redefinition of "reliability" via task fulfillment instead of working hours à more personal responsibility for Ms Ö.
7. Introduction of Ms. Ö. in the in-house newsletter and interview with Ms. Gök, an expert on intercultural issues, on the question of how to deal with diversity in the company on a day-to-day basis
8. Test transfer of Ms Ö. to the HR department, where she is responsible for supporting employees with social difficulties, among other things
9. Enable Ms Ö. to work from home in the event of family bottlenecks
10. Boss attends the coffee break three times and initiates/supports a personal dialog there so that Ms Ö. has a good start with colleagues

Some of these options only make sense under very specific circumstances. For example, option 5 is of course only a viable option if there is a brother who has similar qualifications. It is not possible to judge from the outside which options are realistic and which will satisfy both sides, but that is not necessary: the clients are the experts for their own individual solutions, which do not have to suit anyone else. The mediator will also hold back in terms of content in this phase and only support with her knowledge of creativity techniques.

The list of interests (from phase 3) helps with the selection of options: Which options fulfill which interests and which do not? How can options be combined in order to satisfy all interests, or at least the most important ones? The promise of mediation is to find results that are better for both sides than a halfway compromise (see abstract explanations for phase 3). Depending on the specific situation of the two parties involved, the transfer of Ms. Ö. (option 8) may be able to achieve this: She has a place of work in the HR department that enables, even requires, her to have many intensive contacts with colleagues, and at the same time the company may be able to benefit more from her special competence for the relationship level of social interactions. Perhaps option 7, which can be combined with any other solution, can bring unexpected additional benefits for the company? This would then be what is known in mediation as "enlarging the cake". But perhaps an amicable separation is ultimately the best solution - although this is a rare result of mediation and certainly not the best, it is usually far better than a continued conflict.

In the final phase of mediation, the options found, which are to be firmly agreed or implemented on a trial basis, are then translated into concrete, verifiable agreements that are legally binding and, if desired, enforceable - more details here (Phase 5).

This content comes from our newsletter "Wissenswertes".

Would you like to stay up to date and receive new information on mediation and mediation training?

Sign up now for our free newsletter (german) to make sure you don't miss anything!

Sign up for "Wissenswerters"