Why the part of mediation happens before people ever sit together 

By Chris Breedon

One of the things I have noticed over many years of working with conflict is that people often focus on the wrong moment of the process.

When an organisation first considers mediation, the image that usually springs mind is the joint meeting – the part where two people who have reached a difficult point in their working relationship sit together with an independent mediator who helps them have a conversation they have struggled to have on their own.

It is understandable why this is the part people focus on. It is the visible part of the process. It is the moment when the organisation, the participants and sometimes colleagues aware of the process understand that something is happening.

There is a structure. There is a conversation. There is movement. 

However, after many years working in workplace and community mediation, conflict management and leadership development, I believe that the most important part of mediation happens before anyone sits together in the joint meeting. 

It happens in the conversations before the conversation. 

Those early discussions are where trust begins to form. They are where people can explain their experience without interruption, without having to defend themselves and without feeling that every word they say will immediately be challenged.

They are also where something else important begins to happen - people start to slow down. 

Conflict has away of speeding people up internally. When relationships become strained, our thinking can become narrower. We focus on what has happened, what was said, what was done and why the other person should understand our perspective. We allow our confirmation bias, our anchoring bias etc to run riot. The longer conflict continues, the more difficult it becomes to step back and consider another possibility. 

The conversations before the conversation create that space. 

They allow people to move from reacting to reflecting. 

And that difference is often where resolution begins. 

‍

The conflict we see is rarely the whole story.

When participants arrive at mediation, they rarely arrive carrying just the original disagreement. 

They bring the history that has developed around it. 

They bring the conversations they have replayed in their own minds over and over again. 

They bring the moments that they believe demonstrate a pattern and prove they are in the right. 

They bring the feelings that have grown stronger over time and aren’t always positive.

A disagreement that may have started with one meeting, one email, a challenge, a crossword or one decision can become something much larger because of the meaning attached to it. The meaning the individual attaches to it. 

I remember working with two colleagues whose relationship had deteriorated to the point where communication had almost completely broken down. They were both experienced professionals. Both cared about their work. Both believed they were trying to do the right thing. Yet both had reached the same conclusion; that the other person was the problem.

‍

From one person's perspective, their colleague had become dismissive, uncooperative and obstructive. They felt their views were being ignored and minimalised and that their professional judgement was not being respected. 

From the other’s perspective, they were trying to contribute, challenge ideas constructively and ensure inputs were properly considered before a decision was made. They felt that their attempts to engage were being interpreted negatively. 

Listening to each person separately, both accounts made sense. 

That is one of the interesting things about conflict. Two people can experience the same situation, and both genuinely believe they are describing what happened. But each participant creates their conflict case based on their own perspectives, interpretations and realities. This is a case built on their perceptions and not realities. 

This does not mean everyone is always equally responsible. It does not mean that poor behaviour should be ignored or that accountability does not matter. It means that understanding conflict requires us to look beyond the surface. The visible disagreement is often only the beginning.

‍

The stories we create when information is missing. 

Human beings are meaning-making creatures. We do not simply experience events; we interpret them. This ability is crucial. It allows us to understand situations quickly, make decisions and respond appropriately. If someone behaves aggressively towards us, we need to recognise that and respond, Fight, Flight or Freeze. 

The difficulty comes when we are dealing with situations where the information is incomplete. In such times our brains naturally fill in the gaps. 

Imagine receiving a message from your manager that says: 

"Can you come and see me tomorrow?" 

That is the complete message. 

There is no indication of a problem. There is no explanation. There is no additional information. 

Yet most of us will immediately begin creating a story. 

"Have I done something wrong?" 

"Are they unhappy with my work?" 

‘’Have I upset someone?’’

"Is this going to be a difficult conversation?" 

The interesting thing is that the person is not responding to something that has happened. They are responding to the meaning they have created around something that has yet to happened. 

Conflict often develops in exactly the same way. 

Someone does not respond to an email quickly, and we decide they are ignoring us. 

Someone questions our suggestion in a meeting, and we decide they are undermining us. 

Someone communicates in a direct style, and we decide they are being rude. 

The interpretation may be correct. It may not be. 

But once we have created an explanation that feels believable, we start looking for evidence that supports it. The missed email becomes another example of disrespect. The challenging question becomes another example of criticism. The short conversation in the corridor becomes another example that the relationship has broken down. 

Over time, the original event becomes less important than the story surrounding it.

This is one of the reasons workplace conflict can feel so difficult to resolve. People are often not just discussing what happened yesterday. They are discussing everything they believe that event represents. This is the same for community mediation. 

‍

Why mediation starts with listening. 

This is where the role of mediation becomes vital. A common misunderstanding is that mediation begins when everyone is in the same room – the joint meeting. In reality though, the preparation before the joint meeting is often where the most significant work takes place. 

The individual meetings are not simply a chance for the mediator to collect information understand the facts. They are an opportunity for each participant to be heard, truly heard. For many people experiencing conflict, this may be the first time they have been able to explain their perspective fully. 

They may have tried to speak before, but those conversations have often happened when emotions were already high. One person explains their position, the other person responds, and before long the discussion becomes another argument about who is right. The manager, supervisor, leader or HR rep facilitating the chat is probably not trained to do so to the right level. They think they are doing a good job and they really want to be doing it but….. 

Being heard is different.

Being heard does not mean someone agrees with everything we say. 

It does not mean the other person's perspective is dismissed.

It means that, for a moment, we do not have to fight to have our experience recognised. Someone is listening to us and to us alone and really listening. 

That alone can change the emotional temperature of a conflict. 

‍

Creating the space to think differently.

Listening is often described as one of the most important skills in conflict resolution, and I completely agree. However, effective listening is not simply about allowing someone to speak while waiting for our turn to respond. 

Real (Active) listening creates space for reflection. 

One of the things I have found through mediation is that people often begin the process with a very clear understanding of what happened and why it happened. Their view feels settled and that is understandable. 

When we have been hurt, frustrated or disappointed, our interpretation of events often feels obvious. We have replayed conversations in our minds hundreds of times. We have discussed the situation with colleagues, friends or family – anyone who will listen. If the conflict has been happening for a very long time it takes over our lives and becomes the only thing we talk about. We have built a picture of what happened and why.

The challenge is that certainty can sometimes become a barrier to resolution. Not because certainty is always wrong, but because it can prevent us from exploring what else might be true. It will prevent us from considering that something else might be true – another interpretation. 

A skilled mediator is not there to tell someone that their interpretation is wrong. That approach would immediately create defensiveness and who is the mediator to say an interpretation is wrong? 

Instead, mediation provides an opportunity to explore the situation with curiosity. The mediator guides the exploration. Questions become incredibly powerful. 

“What makes you believe that was their intention?” 

“What information do you have that supports that belief?” 

“Could there be another possible explanation for what happened?” 

“What do you think their experience of that situation might have been?” 

These questions are not designed to undermine someone's perspective. They are designed to widen it and to get them thinking.

Often the most significant moments in mediation are not dramatic. They are small moments of reflection when someone pauses and says: 

“I hadn’t thought about it that way before.” 

That sentence represents movement. It does not mean the person has abandoned their own experience. It does not mean they suddenly agree with everything the other person has done or said. It means they have created enough space to consider another perspective. That is a significant shift. They have moved from certainty towards curiosity. And curiosity is one of the most important ingredients in resolving conflict. 

I often use a tool to aid that break through. Especially when views are so far apart or when someone calls the other participant a liar or at least implies it. I rarely use it in the individual meeting but do so often in the joint meeting. I have a laminated piece of A4 paper with a number 6 on it. I place it between the participants and ask them what they see?

‘‘A 6’’ says one. 

‘’A 9’’ says the other. 

I tell them I see the letter ‘B’ I then ask which 2 of us are lying. Often that gives people time to sit back and consider that we all don’t see the same piece of information at the same time – we all can see something different, and it is our ‘fact’. 

‍

Why psychological safety matters. 

The reason these conversations can be so powerful is because people need to feel safe before they can genuinely reflect. This is where psychological safety becomes important. The term is often used in leadership and organisational discussions, but at its heart it is quite simple. People need to feel that they can be honest without immediately being attacked, judged or dismissed. 

Conflict removes that sense of safety. When people feel threatened, their instinct is often to protect themselves. They defend their position. They explain their actions. They look for reasons why the other person is responsible. That is not a sign that someone is difficult or unreasonable. It is a very human response.

Throughout my career, including my forty years of leadership experience in the RAF and my work with organisations since leaving the service, I have seen many situations where conflict escalated not because people lacked professionalism or good intentions, but because people stopped feeling safe enough to have an open conversation. There were often times when facilitating that conversation was done by someone not trusted to be neutral. 

When people believe they need to defend themselves, listening becomes much harder. They are no longer listening to understand. They are listening for the next point they need to challenge. This is why the environment created around a conflict conversations matters. A conversation without psychological safety often becomes a battle of positions. A conversation with psychological safety creates the possibility of understanding.

The role of leadership in preventing conflict escalation. 

Although mediation is often employed when relationships have already become difficult, many of the principles behind mediation are equally valuable for leaders and managers every day. One of the biggest challenges leaders face is that they are often expected to provide answers quickly. That is understandable. 

Leadership requires decision-making. Organisations need direction. Teams need clarity. However, there is a difference between being decisive and being certain too quickly. Some of the strongest leaders I have worked with shared a common quality: they remained curious. They did not assume they had the complete picture simply because they were the person responsible for making the decision.

They asked questions. They listened to different perspectives. They recognised that the first explanation they heard was not always the complete explanation. This is particularly important when dealing with workplace conflict. A manager may receive a complaint from one employee about another. They may hear a version of events that feels convincing. The temptation can be to immediately move towards solving the problem. But before solutions can be effective, understanding must come first. 

What is really happening? 

What is each person experiencing? 

What assumptions have developed? 

What conversations have not yet taken place? 

These questions do not slow down leadership. In many cases, they prevent leaders from solving the wrong problem.

‍

The joint meeting is where preparation becomes visible.

‍ When participants eventually come together in mediation, the joint meeting can be a powerful moment. However, it is important to understand why it works. 

It does not work because two people suddenly become comfortable discussing a difficult issue. More often, they are not. Difficult conversations remain difficult. It works because the foundation has already been created. Each person knows they have had the opportunity to speak. Each person understands that their perspective has been taken seriously. Each person knows they have not been judged. Each person knows the conversation will be managed fairly. 

That changes the dynamic. 

A person who enters the joint meeting feeling unheard is likely to focus on making sure their position is understood. A person who already feels heard is often more able to listen. That is why the joint meeting is not where trust begins. It is where the trust built beforehand gives people the confidence to have a conversation they previously could not have had. The mediator did not create trust from nothing. They created the conditions where trust could begin to rebuild.

‍

Mediation is not about persuading people to agree. 

There is also sometimes an assumption that successful mediation means everyone leaves completely satisfied, everyone agrees on what happened and the conflict disappears. But reality is rarely that simple. People can experience the same situation entirely differently. They can have different values, different communication styles and different expectations. A successful mediation does not require people to rewrite history or pretend that difficulties did not occur. It requires something more realistic and, in many ways, more valuable. It requires people to develop enough understanding that they can move forward. Sometimes that means rebuilding a working relationship or patching things up with a neighbour. Sometimes it means agreeing practical ways of working together. Sometimes it means acknowledging that the relationship will not return to what it was but finding a professional way forward. 

All of these outcomes have value. Because unresolved conflict carries a cost. It affects::

Wellbeing. 

Performance.

Teams. 

Organisational culture.

Community cohesion. 

The purpose of mediation is not simply to end an argument. It is to help people have a conversation that allows something different to happen afterwards.

‍

The conversation before the conversation. 

Perhaps the biggest lesson I have learned through mediation is that people rarely change their perspective because someone tells them they should. People change when they feel safe enough to explore their own thinking and question themselves. That is why the conversations before the conversation matter. They allow people to slow down and examine the stories they have been carrying. They allow people to separate facts and address their assumptions. They allow people to recognise that another person's experience can be different from their own without either person necessarily being dishonest. And they create the possibility of something that conflict often removes. 

Curiosity. 

The next time you find yourself preparing for a difficult conversation, it is worth asking: 

“What do I know for certain, and what story might I be telling myself?” 

That question does not remove accountability. It does not mean ignoring behaviour that needs to be addressed. It simply creates space for a better conversation. And often, that is where resolution begins. 

‍

About Prospero Mediation and Training

Prospero Mediation and Training helps organisations, leaders, individuals and communities develop the skills to manage conflict more effectively through workplace mediation, community mediation conflict coaching, leadership development and practical conflict management training.

Through mediation and training programmes, we support organisations and communities to have better conversations, strengthen workplace relationships and develop the confidence to manage conflict constructively.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍