by Clive Lewis, former HR Director and CEDR accredited mediator
March 2006

The front page of the business section of the Sunday Times, March 12 2006, detailed a rather public falling out amongst some of the key members of the board of Vodafone. The story being articulated wasn’t particularly unusual. In its simplest form, it appears to be a case of a relatively new Chief executive (Arun Sarin) attempting to put his mark on the business and run it in line with his conviction. However, other members of the board, including the current chairman Lord MacLaurin appear to have different views about the direction in which the company is going and the way in which it is being led. This dispute has now spilt into the domain of key investors who have themselves called a meeting with the Chairman to discuss the company’s lack of strategic direction. 

Although the detail may differ slightly, this type of scenario probably takes place in numerous organisations across the country. What was unusual about this one however, was the candid way in which we the public have had a blow by blow account of events. We have our good friends in the media to thank for this. 

A similar scenario unfolded before our very eyes a few years ago when a Chief executive of a well-known retailer went through a prolonged exit. The CEO was leaving the company with what was considered to be rather generous elements of his remuneration package, including bonus and pension, intact. The corollary of his departure made headline news because of what was being billed at the time as ‘reward for failure’. The Company’s performance during his tenure was viewed to have been less than staggering, this also being reflected in the share price. 

What many people don’t know however was that this particular scenario went to mediation. One day it was on the front pages, then it disappeared and nothing else was heard of it. Two of the countries most senior and experienced mediators were called in to try and resolve the dispute that had developed. They succeeded. 

The fact is that there will always be disputes at senior levels in organisations. People who occupy very senior positions in organisations are usually blessed with a personality where they are not backward in coming forward to express their feelings. This is often done with some force. 

Even if an employee dispute doesn’t hit the front page of the business section of The Times, it is likely to attract its own media within an organisation. An example of this is the smoker’s corner. Quite often, if you want the latest gossip on organisation happenings you need to listen in to the conversations that take place amongst employees who gather for their regular nicotine catch up sessions. Someone in the group will have heard about fallout and then has to demonstrate to fellow smokers that knowledge is power. Others replicate the same approach, now sharing it with less privileged non-smokers. Within a few hours you could have a workforce of hundreds talking about the dispute. Of course, while they are talking, they are probably not working.

Growing trend of workplace mediation

In the UK the use of mediation within the workplace has been steadily growing, with more employers using it as an informal method of dispute resolution. With an increasing number of employment related cases being drawn into the media spotlight, organisations can save time, money and quite often their reputation by engaging mediation skills early on when major disputes arise. 

But what is workplace mediation? Workplace mediation is based on the principles of encouraging constructive communication in a safe and confidential environment, identifying mutual solutions and agreements and restoring respectful, professional working relationships. It is a voluntary, confidential informal process that helps people who are in dispute start talking again, and to jointly agree how to work together better in the future. One of the real values of workplace mediation is that the process can take place, without any employment rights being lost. For example, if an employee is engaged in the tortuous grievance and disciplinary procedure, which came into effect in October 2004, they can still opt for mediation whist the disciplinary process continues. Mediation is ‘without prejudice’. 

For maximum effect, the mediator should be a neutral, third-party, and be seen as such by those with the dispute. The mediator should have with the skills required to cope with emotion, grievances and strong opinions. He or she must be a very effective listener and observer, as well as having the ability to understand the real cause and core of the problem. It is also important to be able to take the parties in conflict to a different ‘space’ of potential solutions. Integrity, neutrality and the dexterity to cope with crises, hidden agendas, long-standing conflict and animosity, as well as unexpected disclosures are absolutely essential. Disputes can often involve more than one party and be culturally diverse, so understanding the power and balance of the relationship is fundamental. In the Vodafone case for example the mediator would need to consider the views of the noted board members but also the key investors that are voicing their concerns. Workplace mediation skills can produce very sound and satisfying rewards. Helping people to overcome blockages and prejudices and to reach their own agreement, which may often involve significant movement on their part, invariably demands sensitivity, determination and patience. One of the most important factors is that the resolution of the dispute remains in the hands of the parties. The mediator will facilitate a process to help them get there.

The Business case

Figures from the last CIPD Managing Conflict at Work survey of 1,190 employers suggest that dealing with conflict is taking up more and more HR time. Over 60 per cent of respondents say they have seen an increase in the use of HR departments to resolve individual disputes in the past 12 months. And it is time-consuming and costly: employers say they are spending an average of 10.5 days per case dealing with disciplinary and grievance issues little less than the 12.5 days they say is spent preparing for a tribunal case. 

There are many reasons that can explain why workplace mediation is now becoming an increasingly used method of dispute resolution for employee conflicts. The high increase in the number of employee complaints, the higher levels of compensation, the continuing introduction of new employment legislation and, for many, the realisation that formal procedures and investigations can in some circumstances be so adversarial and stressful to all concerned that any possibility of people working together again is minimal. 

HR directors are often asked to justify various HR interventions. Workplace mediation has a sound business case. Conflict decreases productivity, whilst increasing stress and sickness levels. Mediation adds real value by taking these issues away without attracting huge legal fees. HR professionals are often best placed to deploy the skills required to be a successful mediator. But it is not an exclusive HR activity. Line managers of other functions can also become workplace mediators if they possess the key people interaction skills required to do so. 

The principles of mediation can also be used to support other areas such as

• Engaging key employees to collectively work towards business priorities
• Supporting the merger and acquisition process
• Helping to implement change
• Facilitating board level interaction

In summary

The Vodafone case is a great example of demonstrating the value that workplace mediation could add. It is a little unfortunate that due to the nature of the mediation process for handling disputes, its success is often not realised, due to confidentiality restrictions. However, the more it is used, the more the value will be seen by those who have used and the more it will be recommended as a valuable process to be adopted.