The Mediation Myth That’s Undermining Your Workplace: How “Collaborative” Solutions Usually Generate Greater Problems Than They Fix
Let me ready to attack one of the biggest fundamental assumptions in current mediation training: the concept that each business disagreement can and should be settled through “mutually beneficial” outcomes.
That thinking seems progressive and compassionate, but with over a decade of working in conflict resolution, I can tell you it’s frequently utter rubbish that creates worse issues than it solves.
Let me explain the core issue with the “collaborative” obsession: it presupposes that all disputes are about misunderstandings or opposing needs that can be cleverly aligned if parties just talk sufficiently.
With actual practice, many organizational disputes concern genuine, fundamental oppositions in values, valid competition for finite positions, or situations where one party genuinely needs to succeed and someone else needs to fail.
The team consulted with a significant creative company where the design group and the client services team were in ongoing conflict about project direction.
Creative people demanded to produce original, standout campaigns that would establish their professional recognition. Client services staff demanded campaigns that would meet the needs of conservative accounts and protect established business contracts.
Either groups had entirely valid concerns. Both positions were important for the agency’s survival.
Executives consulted a series of organizational development consultants who used weeks facilitating “joint dialogue” meetings.
Such meetings produced complex “compromise” strategies that appeared impressive on in theory but were completely impractical in practice.
As an illustration, they developed approaches where every client work would theoretically balance “innovative standards” with “account approval.” They created complex assessment processes and decision-making processes intended to guarantee that each stakeholder’s priorities were considered.
Their consequence: creative development procedures that took three times extended periods than originally, creative output that was mediocre to the point of being bland, and clients who were frustrated by unclear communication about project strategy.
Both departments were even more dissatisfied than originally because neither side was receiving what they genuinely wanted to do their work well.
Following half a year of this nonsense, the team helped leadership to scrap the “collaborative” strategy and implement what I call “Clear Priority Management.”
Rather than attempting to assume that each project could at the same time meet conflicting goals, they implemented clear guidelines for deciding when artistic innovation would take focus and when customer retention would be the primary concern.
For prestigious clients where the agency needed to protect established partnerships, customer satisfaction would take priority.
With newer clients or charity work, artistic teams would have more autonomy to develop experimental approaches.
For prospective industry competitions, innovative innovation would be the main focus.
All groups were clear about precisely what the priorities were for each project, what standards would guide choices, and what trade-offs were being accepted.
Disagreement between the teams almost disappeared. All groups managed to work on doing what they did best rather than constantly arguing about direction.
Account retention increased because account management staff were able to confidently discuss project strategy and expectations. Design innovation got better on selected campaigns because artistic staff were given specific freedom to create experimental approaches.
That insight: working to create “collaborative” outcomes for genuinely conflicting priorities frequently ends up in “everybody loses” outcomes where nobody gets what they really want.
Better to be transparent about trade-offs and make deliberate, thoughtful decisions about when different priorities will get focus.
This is another case of how the “mutual benefit” fixation creates dysfunction. I consulted with a technology development organization where experienced engineers and entry-level employees were in constant conflict about work allocation.
Senior programmers wanted working on advanced, high-visibility tasks that would enhance their careers and improve their professional standing.
Entry-level employees needed access to challenging assignments to develop their skills and advance their capabilities.
Limited numbers of high-profile opportunities meant that giving more assignments to entry-level staff automatically meant reduced opportunities for established team members.
Leadership brought in mediation experts who spent months working to develop “innovative” approaches that would somehow meet all parties’ career aspirations.
The consultants developed elaborate approaches for “shared work responsibility,” “coaching arrangements,” and “expertise development opportunities.”
Not one of these approaches fixed the fundamental issue: there were plainly not enough challenging projects for each person to get everything they needed.
The outcome: increased complexity in assignment management, slower work distribution, and continued frustration from both groups.
We helped them create a straightforward, performance-focused system for project allocation:
Lead assignments on challenging work would be given based on proven competence and experience
Junior staff would receive planned training opportunities created to develop their capabilities systematically
Specific standards and pathways were created for advancement from junior to advanced roles
Each employees understood specifically what they required to achieve to gain access to higher-level types of work assignments
Conflict within various groups nearly ended. New employees managed to concentrate on meeting specific performance objectives rather than competing for limited assignments. Experienced team members could focus on complex assignments without continuously protecting their claim to these assignments.
Output and performance got better substantially across each performance levels.
That reality: transparent, fair competition frequently produces superior results than elaborate “win-win” solutions that try to prevent legitimate choices.
Currently let’s examine probably the greatest dangerous element of the “win-win” fixation: how it shields inadequate behavior and undermines organizational expectations.
We worked with a government agency where a single unit was repeatedly missing targets, delivering poor work, and generating complications for other departments that depended on their work.
Once impacted teams complained about these delivery failures, management automatically reacted by scheduling “joint dialogue” meetings to develop “compromise” solutions.
These sessions would consistently end up in elaborate “workflow improvements” that basically expected effective units to accommodate the inadequate performance of the failing department.
For example, rather than expecting the underperforming team to meet standard timelines, the “win-win” arrangement would be to lengthen all project schedules to adjust for their poor work pace.
Instead of demanding them to fix their work output, affected departments would be expected to give more review, support, and corrections to make up for their poor deliverables.
This system was extremely unfair to effective teams and actively enabled inadequate performance.
Even worse, it caused frustration and cynicism among effective employees who felt that their extra work was being taken for granted while poor performers were being protected from responsibility.
We persuaded administration to eliminate the “win-win” charade and create straightforward accountability expectations.
Leadership created specific output requirements for each teams, with clear accountability measures for ongoing refusal to achieve these requirements.
The underperforming department was given concrete support and a fair deadline to fix their performance. Once they failed to reach the necessary standards, necessary staffing actions were implemented.
This improvement was dramatic. Overall efficiency increased significantly, interdepartmental tensions virtually disappeared, and worker engagement with high performers improved considerably.
The point: genuine “win-win” solutions result from maintaining fair performance levels for each person, not from lowering expectations to enable poor behavior.
Here’s what I’ve concluded after extensive experience of observing organizations struggle with misguided “collaborative” approaches:
Good dispute resolution requires leaders who are prepared to make tough calls, maintain firm standards, and acknowledge that not each person can get all they prefer.
Sometimes the right approach is for one party to win and someone else to accept less. Often the most effective outcome is to get rid of elements who are unable to function effectively within established parameters.
Also often the best solution is to acknowledge that certain conflicts reflect fundamental differences in priorities that will not be compromised through mediation.
Stop trying to manufacture “win-win” outcomes where they cannot exist. Focus on building workplaces with fair standards, equitable implementation, and the courage to make necessary changes when collaborative approaches won’t be effective.
The workplace – and your most valuable staff – need nothing compromise.
If you loved this write-up and you would like to get additional details regarding Delegation Training Perth kindly stop by our own web-page.
