When Mediation Is the Wrong Answer

“Can you just mediate this?”

I get asked that a lot. Often the answer is yes. Mediation is one of the most effective tools I use. I recently mediated between two colleagues who resolved months of tension in a single three-hour session. No formal complaint. No investigation. Both stayed with the organisation.

But sometimes the honest answer is no. Or not yet.

Mediation gets reached for because it feels softer, quicker and cheaper than an investigation. It keeps things informal. Nobody gets “found against”. In the right case, those are real strengths. In the wrong case, they’re the problem.

Here’s when I’d pause before mediating.

When the organisation needs findings

Some complaints raise serious allegations. Bullying, harassment, misconduct. If the facts are disputed and the organisation may need to act on them, it needs findings.

Mediation doesn’t make findings. It isn’t designed to. The mediator doesn’t decide who’s right, and what’s said in the room stays confidential.

If you mediate first, you may end up with an agreement about how two people will work together, and no answer on whether the conduct happened. The organisation may still need to deal with the alleged conduct and any broader workplace risks.

When sexual harassment is alleged

Employers have a positive duty under the Sex Discrimination Act to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate sexual harassment, as far as possible. That changes the question. It’s no longer only “how do these two get along?” It’s “what is the organisation doing about the conduct?”

Treating an allegation of sexual harassment as a relationship issue to be mediated can send exactly the wrong message. To the person who raised it, and to everyone watching how you respond. It can also put the complainant in a room with the person they’ve complained about, before anyone has looked at what happened.

A facilitated conversation may still have a place later, where the people involved are willing. But it can’t replace the organisation properly responding to the allegation.

When there’s a significant power imbalance

Mediation doesn’t need both people to have equal power. Workplaces rarely work that way. A skilled mediator can manage a degree of imbalance through preparation, separate sessions, support people and the structure of the process.

But sometimes the imbalance means one person can’t take part freely. If someone is afraid of what happens if they disagree, speak openly or walk away without an agreement, I’d question whether mediation is the right process at that point.

An agreement isn’t meaningful just because someone signed it.

When someone isn’t really choosing to take part

Mediation depends on genuine participation. An organisation can ask people to attend. It can’t make them negotiate honestly or reach an agreement.

If someone believes their job depends on agreeing to an outcome, you don’t have a mediation. You have a meeting under pressure. Whatever comes out of it is fragile.

This is why I meet each person separately before any joint session. Sometimes hesitation comes from not knowing what mediation involves. People worry it will be a confrontation, or that they’ll be pushed into an agreement. Once I explain how it works, many are willing to give it a go. But I want to hear from each of them that they want to go ahead. If someone still doesn’t, that’s important information, not an obstacle to manage around.

When mediation is a way to avoid a harder decision

This is the one nobody says out loud. Sometimes an organisation wants mediation because the alternative is uncomfortable. Investigating a senior person. Dealing with a manager’s conduct. Admitting that a restructure caused the problem.

Mediation can’t fix what the organisation isn’t willing to face. If the real issue is a leadership decision, a mediator can’t make it for you.

What to do instead

If mediation isn’t right yet, that doesn’t mean doing nothing. Depending on the situation, the better first step might be:

• An investigation, when you need findings you can act on.
• Interim measures, such as changing reporting lines or work arrangements, while you work out next steps.
• A facilitated team process, when the problem is wider than two people.
• Direct management action, when the issue is clear and it’s the manager’s job to address it.

And mediation can still come later. After an investigation, it can help people work out how to work together again. It’s often more effective then, because the facts are settled and nobody is arguing about what happened.

The question to ask first

Before you mediate, ask what you need at the end. If the answer is “two people able to work together again”, mediation may be exactly right. If it’s “to determine what happened so we can decide what to do”, you probably need to start somewhere else.

If you’re weighing up whether mediation is right for a situation in your workplace, get in touch. Sometimes the most useful thing I do is help an organisation choose the right process, even when the answer isn’t mediation.