Conflict with Your Supervisor: When Is Mediation a Good Idea?
Mediation is a wise choice when a conflict with your supervisor can no longer be resolved through direct discussion and your collaboration, job performance, or health is being compromised.
A prerequisite, however, is that both parties are willing to examine the situation and work together to find a practical solution. This does not mean that they must agree with each other in advance or admit fault. There must, however, be a willingness and some room to listen to one another and explore possible solutions.
Workplace mediation can be nerve-wracking for everyone involved. Want to know what to expect? In this blog post, we’ll explain everything. You can also ask us a question at any time using our contact form.
When is there a conflict?
When we think of a conflict, we often picture an open argument. At work, however, conflicts are by no means always visible. Sometimes, on the contrary, people barely speak to one another anymore, the same disagreements keep recurring, or it turns out that employees and managers have very different expectations of one another.
A conflict with a supervisor, for example, can manifest itself in the following ways.
1. You don't really talk to each other anymore
Conversations are avoided. Communication takes place mainly via email, or people talk about each other with HR, coworkers, or the company doctor instead of talking to each other directly.
Communication can be cautious, formal, or, conversely, sharp. Sometimes things seem calm, but only the strictly necessary topics are discussed. As a result, problems remain just below the surface.
2. You're always disagreeing about something
There may be differences of opinion regarding, for example:
- the employee's performance;
- the allocation or performance of tasks;
- the management style;
- the level of workload;
- agreements made;
- a performance review or improvement process;
- the way decisions are made.
A difference of opinion is not, in and of itself, a conflict. A conflict typically arises when people are unable to discuss or resolve the difference effectively. The substantive discussion then becomes increasingly personal.
3. Expectations vary
Employees and managers may have different expectations regarding tasks, responsibilities, independence, availability, collaboration, or expected behavior.
For example, the manager may expect more initiative, while the employee needs clear instructions. Or the employee may think they are performing well, while the manager has been dissatisfied for some time but has not expressed this clearly enough.
Often, these differences only become apparent once disappointment has already set in.
In practice, these three forms often overlap. Unclear expectations lead to frustration, a difference in substance takes on a personal tone, and eventually, the parties no longer speak openly with one another. What starts out as a small issue can thus affect collaboration, performance, and sometimes even health.
When can you first discuss the conflict on your own?
Not every conflict immediately calls for mediation. A direct conversation may be sufficient when:
- both parties are still able to listen to each other;
- the problem is reasonably clear and well-defined;
- emotions do not completely dominate the conversation;
- there is still sufficient trust to reach agreements;
- previous discussions hadn't always stalled at the same point.
It helps to think ahead about exactly what you want to discuss. Don’t just point out what you think the other person is doing wrong, but also explain how it affects you, what you need, and what changes you’d like to see in the future.
A conversation becomes more difficult when everything that has gone wrong in recent years comes up all at once. Try to distinguish between:
- the immediate cause;
- the underlying pattern;
- the implications for cooperation;
- the desired solution.
This will help ensure that the conversation doesn't turn into a mere list of accusations.
When is mediation a good idea?
Mediation can be helpful when an employee and a supervisor are no longer able to resolve the conflict on their own but are still willing to work toward a solution.
Signs of this include, for example:
- Discussions keep repeating themselves without any results;
- The same events are interpreted in very different ways;
- Trust is steadily declining;
- Communication takes place almost exclusively in writing;
- Feedback on performance immediately leads to a discussion;
- one or both parties avoid contact;
- the conflict hinders work or reintegration;
- HR or a senior manager has tried to help, but without lasting results;
- The partnership is under strain, and it is not yet clear whether it can be repaired;
- One of the parties is considering a different position or leaving, but this has not yet been discussed openly.
A mediator brings structure to the discussion and helps the parties distinguish between positions, interests, expectations, and emotions. The mediator does not determine who is right and does not make any decisions. The employee and employer retain control over the outcome.
Do the parties need to know in advance what they want?
No. The parties do not need to know in advance exactly whether they want to resume their collaboration or go their separate ways.
In fact, one of the goals of mediation may be to explore this very issue. Sometimes, during the discussions, it becomes clear that a reconciliation is possible if expectations are articulated and new agreements are reached. In other situations, it becomes clear that further cooperation is no longer realistic.
Mediation can then focus on a careful parting of ways, also known as exit mediation. The parties’ advisors can assist in assessing the practical and legal implications of potential agreements. The mediator remains responsible for the process and communication, but not for providing legal advice.
What is necessary, however, is for both parties to be willing to engage seriously in the conversation. Mediation does not require anyone to accept the other person’s perspective or admit fault. There must, however, be some willingness to listen, exchange information, and explore possible solutions.
So enthusiasm isn't required. A minimal opening, however, is.
Can mediation also be used in cases of illness or return to work?
When a conflict leads to absenteeism due to illness or hinders a return to work, mediation can help restore communication. The company physician can assess whether the employee’s health condition allows for participation in mediation and whether certain conditions must be met.
The roles must remain clear in this regard:
- The company physician assesses the employee's medical fitness for work;
- The mediator facilitates the discussion about the conflict;
- The employee and employer remain responsible for the employee's return to work.
The mediator does not assess whether someone is unable to work and does not pass judgment on the medical situation. Sometimes rest is needed first. In other situations, a timely discussion can actually prevent the conflict and absenteeism from escalating further.
It is important to distinguish between being unable to do something and not wanting to do something. If participation is medically impossible, this must be taken into account. If someone does not want to participate primarily because of anger, distrust, or resistance, it may help to first address that barrier.
When is mediation less appropriate?
Mediation isn't always the right first step. A different approach may be necessary when:
- one party wants only a ruling on who is right;
- there is absolutely no willingness to speak with the other person;
- there is an acute unsafe situation;
- potential integrity violations must first be investigated independently;
- a formal complaint or other decision is required;
- the employee is medically unable to participate at that time.
Even when the decision to terminate the employment relationship is, in fact, already a done deal, there must be clarity on the matter. Mediation should not be presented as an open discussion about reconciliation if that possibility no longer exists.
Mediation regarding the terms of a potential departure can still be useful, but it serves a different purpose. For example, the parties can reach agreements on how they will part ways, how they will communicate about it, and how to ensure a smooth conclusion.
How does workplace mediation work?
At Van Opstal & Partners, we take a concise and goal-oriented approach. Mediation generally consists of three phases.
Phase 1: Assessing the Situation
The mediator meets with both parties separately. During these initial meetings, there is time for each person to share their story, concerns, expectations, and goals. The mediator also discusses whether mediation is appropriate and what is needed to ensure the joint session goes smoothly.
Phase 2: The Joint Discussion
After that, the parties engage in a discussion under the guidance of the mediator. The mediator oversees the process, ensures that both parties have a chance to speak, and helps keep the discussion constructive.
The focus is not only on what happened in the past, but primarily on the interests and needs underlying the various positions. From there, we explore whether reconciliation, new working arrangements, or another solution is possible.
Phase 3: Making Arrangements
If the parties reach a resolution, the terms of the agreement are set forth. This may involve restoring the employment relationship, reintegration, cooperation, or termination of employment.
Mediation is confidential. The content of the discussions will not be shared with others without consent. Feedback to, for example, the company physician or employer is therefore limited to what has been agreed upon by the parties.
What if both parties are willing, but don't know how to get started?
Even when both the employee and the manager agree that something needs to be done, mediation doesn’t always get off the ground on its own. Who takes the initiative? Who pays the costs? And how do you find a mediator whom both parties view as independent and qualified?
The initiative can come from either side. An employee can suggest mediation, but a supervisor, HR, the company physician, or a consultant can also point out this option.
A practical first step is to briefly acknowledge that the discussions have reached an impasse and that an independent third party can help. It is important that both parties be involved in selecting the mediator. Without sufficient trust in the mediator, the chances of a successful mediation are lower.
Prompt action is key in this regard. The longer the parties remain stuck in the same patterns, the greater the risk of further escalation, prolonged absenteeism, or legal proceedings. A mediation process at Van Opstal & Partners is brief and focused on practical solutions, with minimal burden on both parties.
Conclusion
Mediation is a wise choice when a conflict with a supervisor can no longer be resolved on your own, but there is still room to seek a workable solution.
That result may consist of:
- restoration of cooperation;
- clear new working arrangements;
- support for reintegration;
- improving communication;
- or a carefully managed termination of employment.
Don't wait until communication has completely broken down. The sooner mediation is initiated, the greater the opportunity for reconciliation and the lower the chance that the conflict will escalate further.
Are you dealing with a workplace dispute and want to know what your options are? Van Opstal & Partners operates nationwide, so you can count on a mediator who is a good fit for your situation and, whenever possible, is from your region.
Go back to the overview