Too Little, Too Late

Is there a point at which mediation no longer a viable option - that it is a case of 'too little, too late'? Unfortunately, yes.

I am a strong believer in the power of having essential conversations, even when the ideal time to have it has passed. Because, sometimes, having the conversation late is SO much better than never addressing the topic.

Yet, let’s not ignore the fact that delays do influence the effectiveness of a conversation. Delaying initiating the conversation, or avoiding it until you are forced to have it, can lead to the following consequences:

• Your colleagues or team members lose trust in your ability to manage situations.
• The issues that would be the focus of the conversation CONTINUE to be an issue.
• The core issues escalate and become more complicated – involving additional factors or individuals.
• Perceptions of the issue become more embedded, even though memories of the facts may become more ambiguous.
• Grievances or complaints are raised – leading to further delays in resolution and additional layers to work through.
• Good people will leave.

Even if the above have become reality, mediation is still likely to be a beneficial tool for conflict resolution.

Mediation provides the space to get clarity on ambiguous situations, to de-tangle multi-layered issues and start to re-build trust again. The magic of mediation is in acknowledging the different perspectives of the individuals but allowing for the possibility of an alternative perspective – through asking curious questions, listening, challenging assumptions, and approaching the situation in a collaborative, problem-solving way.

However, for some individuals, too much time has passed and so the mediation is either a) only able to improve the situation to a small degree, or b) not an option because they do not want – or even believe in the possibility of - conflict resolution.

Why do people get to this point?

1.      They have repeatedly asked for assistance and intervention with an issue from senior leaders but have felt ‘fobbed off’ for too long – so their trust in the organisation’s desire or ability to support a conflict resolution process beyond booking a mediation is depleted.

2.      They have been dealing with the issue for so long that they cannot picture an improvement.

3.      The situation with another person has escalated to the point of such dysfunction and toxicity that there is no desire to communicate with them at all.

And, yes, sometimes individuals are open to mediation but not necessarily to participating in a way that will achieve the results they hope for.

Delay often means that people become quite fixed and embedded in their opinion of the situation or the other person. What they originally recognised was an opinion will more and more feel like fact – especially if their opinion was corroborated and encouraged by the other people they talk to, who are not involved.

Willingness is a HUGE benefit to the mediation process though, so an experienced mediator will probably be able to facilitate a positive process and encourage the use of additional tools along the way to increase the likelihood of a long-term peaceful outcome – such as complimentary training, psychometric profiling, or individual conflict coaching sessions.

Sometimes, delay may increase the desperation of a person to resolve the issues, but an experienced mediator will be aware that more often, it will be more of a challenge for someone to change their opinion or take the steps to resolve the issue. So, extra steps in the process may then be required to lead to a more peaceful outcome.

Those steps may involve additional tools as mentioned above, or it may be that the mediation requires the contribution of additional people. If the mediation had been done earlier, perhaps the process would only involve the people at the core of the initial issue. However, as time has gone on and the issue has brought in others in the organisation, to achieve a full and effective resolution, it may be that others need to also be part of the process.

What can be done to prevent this situation?

Firstly, notice when someone has asked for help with a situation and choose to respond rather than go with your instinctive reaction (which for most people is just to wish it away!). If an intervention is requested and seems to be required to improve things, the next step is to decide whether you or an external mediator would be best suited to manage the conflict neutrally and effectively.

Secondly, if factors are leading to a delay in the situation being resolved, acknowledge that the situation will not go away by itself and could cause damage to your reputation, the atmosphere in the team, productivity, and could even lead to losing valuable members of staff.

Thirdly, develop the skills and confidence of the leaders in your organisation and their team members. This can be done through training or offering coaching for them in conflict management skills, assertiveness, or leadership skills. Many people do not delay out of bad intentions but a lack of confidence in their ability to manage the situation effectively.

If as many people in the organisation as possible feel equipped to handle difficult conversations and communicate effectively with their colleagues, then you will develop a culture of regular feedback, productive conversations, and peaceful communication.

My final comment on this is to say that as a workplace mediator, I have a unique insight into how much courage it takes to have conversations which are awkward and difficult. Nevertheless, I have also seen the cost of conflict resolution delay on the mental health, physical wellbeing, and careers of so many individuals. It does not benefit anyone to delay in resolving issues.

If you would like to know more about how Mosaic Mediation can support individuals or teams in your organisation with workplace mediation, executive conflict coaching, assertiveness coaching, or training in communication skills, find out more here – www.mosaicmediation.co.uk/practiceareas