I mediated recently for a public body that had been unable to resolve a complaint. A bereaved family had received very poor service at a tragic time for them.
The investigation had established that no blame could be attributed to an individual - at least not to the extent that it would attract any sanction - but despite an absolute apology by the organisation the family could not move on.
Although they truly acknowledged how awful their situation had been, the organisation felt the family was becoming a thorn in their side, with repeated requests to the CEO's office for face-to-face meetings with individual staff members. So far as they were concerned, the organisation was not in dispute: they had apologised profusely and acknowledged by letter the paucity of service as well
as explaining why no individual blame could be apportioned.
For their part the family remained bitter and angry> They they did not dispute the investigation findings but felt the complaint resolution process, whilst addressing facts, had failed to allow them to vent their feelings sufficiently. They disliked the dispassionate tone of the organisation's letters of explanation and felt the apology lacked humanity.
Individual members of staff had been asked to meet with a member of the family but were uneasy about being the organisation's scapegoat, and in any case could not see why they should put themselves through a potentially stressful situation: after all they had done no wrong.
I was asked if I would help.
having mediated workplace disputes for the organisation before I knew that their preferred method of mediation was to hold one face-to-face meeting with only superficial initial contacts with the parties. That wouldn't do here; I needed to gain the trust and confidence of both parties - not least the nervous middle manager whose team had been involved in only part of the incident. He had been told he had to participate - not ideal for mediation where a key principle is that participation is
voluntary!
I knew from experience that in situations where emotions are high parties often have little idea what they want beyond their outpouring of anger or distress. So my first conversation was a long one as I listened, and listened, and listened.
Where I find coaching and mediation complement each other is in the skill of asking questions that guide a party towards an outcome, or in this case, a resolution they wish to achieve. At the end of our conversation I had a good idea of what to expect and also importantly permission to reassure the other party that their intentions were not hostile.
My meeting with the middle manager was very different. He was defensive - after all he'd done nothing wrong, it was official. In our initial meeting I reassured him that I would be in charge of the session, and to assure him of my credibility as a mediator.
The face-to-face meeting was a success: the middle manager left with a different view of how to manage complaints; the bereaved mother found she was not as angry as she thought when she heard how people had tried their best but just didn't see the bigger picture.
Importantly for me, her parting comment that she 'could take down the bereavement cards now' was a sign that after two years she could see beyond the dispute she'd been locked in.
As a mediator this case reinforced the value of mediation in situations beyond neighbourhood and family disputes, or workplace issues. It also highlighted how vital flexibility of approach is, with particular emphasis on parties' needs being of paramount importance.
I received a lovely thank-you e-mail this week from the family - that meant a lot, not least because despite my independence, I'd been brought in by the organisation.
No comments:
Post a Comment