Exploring the efficacy of mediation in cases of workplace bullying

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the extent to which mediation constitutes an appropriate and effective intervention in cases of alleged workplace bullying. Design/methodology/approach Data was collected from 25 practising mediators in New Zealand by way of semi-structured interviews. The transcribed data was analysed by way of thematic analysis using the software NVivo11. The features of bullying cases identified as potential concerns for mediation in the literature acted as a coding framework, alongside the analytical framework for assessing dispute resolution processes developed by John Budd and Alexander Colvin. Findings A thematic analysis of the data revealed four key features of bullying experiences that mediators believed influenced the efficacy of the mediation process: emotional stability of the parties; power imbalance between the parties; insight and differing interpretations; and the impact of organisational context. Further, the analysis revealed two strategies to overcome barriers to the efficacy of mediation: considering mediation as part of a broader range of dispute resolution processes; and encouraging early low-level mediation intervention. Research limitations/implications This study only elicited the views of workplace mediators, many of whom were self-employed. Thus, the participants in the sample were likely to speak positively about the use of mediation. In part, this was helpful because the mediators spoke largely about how they made the process work allowing identification of techniques to improve the efficacy of mediation. However, future research is needed to explore the views of other parties, including parties to a bullying mediation, managers and/or human resources (HR) personnel. Practical implications Five recommendations for workplace mediators dealing with bullying cases are suggested: mediators should screen the emotional stability of the parties during the initial stages of the mediation; mediators should discuss with the parties the possibility and potential benefits of bringing along a support person; mediators should view their role more widely to influence the wider organisational contexts in which bullying occurs; informal mediation should take place before the escalation of a bullying experience; and mediators should consider completing an investigation prior to the start of the mediation. Originality/value Prior empirical studies on the efficacy of workplace mediation have not specifically investigated the use of mediation for bullying cases. This study addresses this gap in that it provides empirical support for the proposition that mediation in cases of bullying may only be appropriate under certain circumstances and that a flexible approach to mediation is required.

Mediation: Understanding a Constructive Conflict Management Tool in the Workplace

“…There will be situations in which mediation is less suitable or a judicial procedure is the only option. For example, in the case of workplace bullying or sexual harassment, some authors argue mediation is not in the interest of the victim nor in the interest of organizations (Jenkins, 2011;Olsen, 2012), and can only be appropriate under certain circumstances (Lempp et al, 2020). Therefore, workplace mediation should be part of a broader conflict management system (Brinker, 2016;Jones, 2016) in which conditions are stipulated for which mediation may work best or may be most effective.…”

Much blame – little gain? The effects of single vs multi-blaming on labelling and third-party intervention in workplace bullying

“…There is evidence that-in addition to being cost-effective-mediation is appreciated even by bullying victims as it increases voice and perceived agency, as the resolution is decided solely by the participants and not the employer (Saundry et al, 2018; see also Budd and Colvin, 2014). However, if used as a single measure, classical mediation approaches typically neglect wider organizational causes and consequences of bullying and may enable perpetrators to escape justice (see Jenkins, 2011;Lempp et al, 2020). Hodgins et al (2014) contend that interventions must be multi-level and address the complex (organizational) causes of bullying to be effective.…”

“…There is the risk that mediation as single measure is misused by management to avoid organizational measures and prevent litigation. However, mediation can indeed be useful, solutionoriented and empowering for the participants (Saundry et al, 2018) if used early and is followed by a wider range of organizational measures (Jenkins, 2011;Lempp et al, 2020). Giving voice to the parties can provide insight to possible organizational causes and solutions of the case, i.e.…”

“…facilitate further investigation (without breaching confidentiality). However, monitoring and investigating the wider organizational context as suggested by Lempp et al (2020) might be better achieved by regular dialogue meetings (e.g. Mikkelsen et al, 2011).…”

Impacts of Globalization and Conflicts on Business Performance and Possibilities of Its Solution

“…At present, however, a comprehensive perception of conflict (conflict situations) is still coming to the fore, which requires an interdisciplinary approach to the study of this issue. [1] Conflict is a mental state in which simultaneous or immediate succession is the meeting of two or more opposing equally strong motives, which require different or even contradictory decisions and actions. [2] In work [3,4], the author defines that conflict is a fact of our daily lives.…”