At Turning Point Resolutions (TPR), we want organizations to be educated, supported, and well-trained to manage conflict in-house to the greatest extent, when and where it makes sense. Many workplace conflicts can be addressed effectively through early, thoughtful, and well-structured in-house conversations. When conflict is identified early, and the people involved are willing to participate, an in-house mediation process can repair communication, clarify expectations, and foster a more respectful working relationship. In other words, organizations do not have to immediately shift to hiring external mediators.
However, not every workplace issue is suitable for in-house mediation. Before proceeding, organizations should assess whether the matter requires an external mediator, a workplace assessment, an investigation, coaching, or another formal process. Mediation works best when participants engage voluntarily, speak with measured honesty, listen to one another, and work toward a practical path forward. Mediation requires a mindset of forward focus.
The following checklist can help organizations determine whether in-house mediation is appropriate and how to structure the process.
1. Assess whether mediation is appropriate
Mediation is not suitable for every workplace concern. Before proceeding, consider whether the issue involves allegations of serious misconduct, harassment, discrimination, bullying, violence, retaliation, or a significant power imbalance. If so, the organization may need to consider an investigation, a workplace assessment, coaching, or external support before offering mediation. At TPR, we have found that in-house mediation is appropriate when:
- The participants are willing to take part.
- The issue is primarily relational, communication-based, interpersonal, or task- based.
- There is a reasonable possibility of future working interaction.
- The participants can engage safely and respectfully.
- The organization is prepared to support any agreements reached.
We have also found that in-house mediation may not be appropriate when:
- A participant feels pressured or unsafe.
- There are unresolved allegations requiring investigation.
- There is a significant power imbalance that cannot be managed.
- One or more of the participants are unwilling to participate in good faith.
- The organization needs findings of fact before deciding what should happen next.
- The issue has escalated to a team or department issue.
We received a call from an organization regarding a situation where a facilities team was not getting along. The organization requested mediation between two individuals who were seen as central to the team conflict. We recommended a cultural assessment to determine the actual issues at hand. Through the assessment, we found that the team had turned on three members because they suspected these three were engaging in time theft. The assessment pinpointed the misconduct, led to appropriate recommendations, and prompted the organization to take the next steps. In other cases, participants may have made allegations against each other, even filed complaints or grievances, but they ask to engage in mediation to resolve the situation. Mediation may be appropriate. This might be a situation to consider an external investigator, given the potential complexity.
Taking time to assess suitability protects participants, ensures the right process is used, and increases the likelihood that the process will be meaningful.
2. Clarify the purpose of the mediation
Before beginning, be clear about why mediation is being considered. The purpose should not be to determine who is right or wrong, assign blame, or force agreement. Mediation is intended to create a structured conversation where participants can better understand each other’s perspectives and explore possible solutions.
Organizations should ask participants:
What is the goal of the mediation? If the goal is to repair a working relationship, improve communication, clarify expectations, support a team or working group in moving forward, or address specific incidents or broader patterns, then mediation is the right process. A clear purpose helps everyone understand what the process is designed to achieve. At TPR, the first question we ask participants to answer when preparing for mediation is what their intention is in engaging in the process. This helps participants align with that intention and allows all subsequent work to tie back to it.
3. Choose the right internal mediator
The person facilitating the mediation should be objective, skilled, trusted and ethical within the organization. Ideally, the mediator should not have a personal interest in the outcome, a close relationship with either participant, or decision-making authority over the issues being discussed. This though would cut out almost everyone in an organization. It is reasonable for direct supervisors to facilitate difficult conversations between their employees using the model described here, as the goal is to address issues early. If the situation escalates, support from People and Culture/Human Resources becomes critical.
An internal mediator should be able to:
- Remain objective and balanced.
- Manage difficult emotions.
- Ask clear and respectful questions.
- Maintain confidentiality within appropriate limits.
- Recognize when the process is no longer appropriate.
- Support participants without taking sides.
If the organization cannot identify someone who can credibly fill this role, an external mediator may be the better option.
4. Prepare participants for mediation
Before bringing people together, the mediator should meet with each participant separately. These pre-mediation conversations help the mediator understand the issues, assess readiness, and explain the process. They also allow participants to prepare for a difficult conversation.
During these conversations, the mediator should ask each participant questions such as:
- What has been happening from your perspective?
- What impact has this had on you or your work?
- What would you like the other person to understand?
- What would help you feel prepared for a joint conversation?
- What do you want to have in any agreement moving forward?
- What guidelines would you like for this conversation so you can feel safe and supported?
The mediator also needs to explain to participants what to expect during the mediation. At its most basic, a mediator tells participants that they will support the parties in having a respectful conversation with one another that will lead to agreed-upon outcomes for the future. These conversations also help participants understand that mediation is not about blame. It is about creating a structured opportunity to speak, listen, and explore a way forward. At TPR, it is quite normal for our mediators to meet with participants a few times when the situation is more complex or participants need additional support to prepare for the joint conversation. As mediators, we often need a toolbox full of skills to help participants frame their thinking and move beyond their positions. For example:
Participant: “I don’t want Sam to talk to me anymore. Sam’s a jerk”.
Mediator: What is it you need from your interactions with Sam? Meaning, what do you want them to look like?
Participant: I expect to be treated with respect, just as Sam talks to everyone else. I also only want us to talk about work, and no more jokes about my car, the way I walk, or anything at all. I don’t want to come to work right now because of Sam. I need that to stop.
Mediator: It sounds like you want to tell Sam that, moving forward, in any conversations, you want to be spoken to professionally, in the same manner Sam speaks to other colleagues and stay focused on professional issues. Tell me more about how Sam speaks to other colleagues.
Participant: Well, first, he lets them talk and doesn’t keep giving his two cents. He listens to them. When I speak, he cuts me off before I can get a sentence in.
Mediator: So, in addition to being spoken to professionally and being focused on the work, you want the opportunity to share your perspective uninterrupted and to know that you are being heard. Again, you want to be spoken to the same as others.
Participant: Yes…
5. Explain confidentiality and its limits
Participants should understand how information shared in mediation will be treated. Confidentiality supports openness, but it should never be promised without limits.
Organizations should be clear that confidentiality may be limited where there is a risk of harm, disclosure of serious misconduct, legal or policy obligations, or information the organization is required to address. Participants should also be aware that, as the mediator, there will be times when you will need to share information among participants to move the process forward. Our practice at TPR is to share with each participant the key issues and questions participants will have for each other during the mediation preparation stage. This helps mediators continue to assess readiness and ensures participants are well prepared for the actual joint conversation.
Before mediation begins, participants should understand:
- What information will remain confidential.
- What information may need to be shared.
- Who will receive the outcome summary.
- Whether notes will be taken.
- How the agreement will be documented and who will receive a copy.
Clear expectations about confidentiality help avoid confusion later. This should be done in the first pre-mediation conversation.
6. Set ground rules for the conversation
Ground rules help create a respectful and productive process. These should be reviewed at the start of the mediation and agreed to by all participants.
Helpful ground rules may include:
- Speak with care.
- Do not interrupt.
- Focus on your own experience.
- Listen to understand, not to respond.
- Avoid personal attacks.
- Take breaks if needed.
- Be honest about what you can agree to.
- Keep the focus on the future working relationship.
Ground rules do not eliminate tension, but they provide a shared framework for managing difficult moments.
7. Structure the mediation conversation
A clear structure helps participants feel more prepared and keeps the conversation focused.
A simple mediation structure may include:
- Opening comments from the mediator addressing purpose, process, confidentiality, roles, breaks, timelines, and ground rules.
- Identifying the issues for resolution.
- Each participant speaking about their perspective.
- Discussion of impact.
- Exploration of needs and expectations
- Exploration of possible solutions.
- Development of practical agreements.
- Confirmation of next steps.
The mediator should guide the conversation while allowing participants to speak for themselves. The goal is not to avoid discomfort, but to ensure the discomfort is managed respectfully and constructively.
8. Focus on interests, not only positions
Participants often enter conflict with fixed positions. For example, one person may want an apology, while another may want the issue to be dropped. Mediation is more effective when the conversation moves beneath positions and explores the interests underneath them. Asking participants what is most important to them helps uncover their interests.
Common workplace interests include:
- Respect.
- Clarity.
- Fairness.
- Inclusion.
- Trust.
- Predictability.
- Communication.
- Accountability.
When participants understand what matters to one another, they are more likely to identify practical, workable solutions. Solutions are based on interests.
9. Develop clear and practical agreements
If participants reach an agreement, the outcome should be specific, realistic, and behaviour-based. Vague commitments such as “communicate better” or “be respectful” are usually not enough.
More useful agreements may include:
- How participants will communicate going forward.
- How concerns will be raised.
- How meetings will be managed.
- What information will be shared.
- What behaviours each person will focus on.
- What support each person needs from a supervisor or leader.
- When the agreement will be reviewed.
As mediation experts, we at TPR make sure we write agreements in plain, clear language so that participants can review the agreement later and know exactly what they agreed to and what is expected of them.
10. Confirm the organization’s role
Many workplace conflicts are not only interpersonal. They are also connected to unclear roles, inconsistent leadership, workload issues, communication gaps, or broader workplace culture. If the organization has a role in supporting the outcome, that role should be clearly identified.
The organization may need to:
- Clarify reporting relationships.
- Set behavioural expectations.
- Provide leadership support.
- Adjust communication practices.
- Offer coaching or training.
- Monitor the working relationship.
- Address broader team dynamics.
Without organizational follow-through, mediation agreements can lose momentum.
11. Plan follow-up
Mediation should not end when the meeting ends. A follow-up plan helps ensure that agreements are working and that participants have the support they need.
Follow-up may include:
- A check-in with each participant.
- A joint follow-up meeting.
- Supervisor support.
- Coaching.
- Team facilitation.
- Review of the agreement after a set period.
Follow-up needs to be supportive rather than punitive. The purpose is to help participants maintain progress and address concerns early.
12. Know when to stop or seek external support
An internal mediator should be prepared to pause or end the process if mediation is no longer appropriate. This may happen if new information emerges, participants are unable to engage respectfully, safety concerns arise, or the matter appears to require a different process.
Organizations should seek external support when:
- The conflict involves senior leaders or board members.
- There are allegations of serious misconduct.
- There is a significant power imbalance.
- Internal neutrality is not possible.
- The conflict has become entrenched.
- The issue affects a larger team or workplace culture.
- Participants do not trust the internal process.
Recognizing when external support is needed is not a failure. It is a sign that the organization is taking the matter seriously and choosing a process that fits the circumstances. When organizations call us, we already know they have tried to handle the situation, and a perfect storm of issues kept the conflict from being resolved.
Final Thoughts
In-house mediation can be a valuable tool when workplace conflict is addressed early, the process is well structured, and participants are willing to engage in good faith. It can help people clarify concerns and establish practical ways of working together.
The key is to ensure the process is appropriate, voluntary, confidential within clear limits, and supported by the organization. When the matter is complex, sensitive, or deeply entrenched, organizations should consider whether an external mediator or consultant is better positioned to support a fair and effective process.
Turning Point Resolutions is available to support your in-house mediators and to assist with external mediation. Consider us a partner in conflict.