Understanding and using mediation effectively
“Conflict facilitation doesn’t work!” – Statements like these are commonly heard, even in family businesses. Conflict facilitation and mediation (hereinafter referred to simply as “mediation”) were once considered hugely promising in terms of creating a new, dialogue-oriented conflict culture. It is a procedure designed to bring clarity rather than assign blame – and yet it sometimes fails. Why is that?
Arguing is easier than listening
According to conflict expert Christoph Maria Michalski, there are two main reasons for this which, however revealing they may be, give food for thought: Mediation is uncomfortable (even though this is precisely where its potential lies) and perhaps even more importantly: We humans often shy away from honest dialogue. Unfortunately, the desire to be proved right or to win a conflict is often stronger than the willingness to reach an understanding.
The fact that the philosopher and journalist Svenja Flasspöhler, in her article ‘Streiten’ [‘Arguing’], encourages respectful arguing with the aim of gaining the upper hand, reinforces this view, whereas mediation demands the opposite, namely pausing, listening, taking both oneself and your counterpart seriously – and that is precisely what we find difficult.
What’s more, mediation continues to be widely misunderstood even today. Many people regard the mediation process as a harmonious approach for those who wish to avoid harsh confrontations. In fact, quite the opposite is the case. Good mediation involves hard work and is demanding, but it also brings clarity and relief.
When neutrality becomes a challenge
The professionalisation of the mediation sector is a further factor that reinforces the critical attitude towards mediation. The contents and structures of training programmes vary widely, and the quality of the courses on offer is accordingly inconsistent. Confidence in the procedure suffers if participants get the impression that mediation is merely for show.
In this context, the professional background of the mediators may also play a role, for instance, when a legally oriented way of thinking predominates. Those with a legal advisory or judicial background have the relevant specialist expertise and may draw on this, albeit unconsciously. However, mediation calls for an approach that creates space for personal responsibility and cooperation. This requires deliberately stepping back from a judgemental, adjudicative perspective in favour of a process-oriented approach to working together. Impartiality is not a given, but something that needs to be practised every day.
What we need is a new approach to conflict
Mediation has not failed – but it in practice it fails time and again. And this has less to do with mediation itself than with the way we, as a society, as organisations and as individuals, deal with conflicts. If we manage to see mediation not as a ‘last resort’ but as a genuine turning point, there lies enormous potential for finding viable solutions and for greater kindness in the way we treat one another.
