Mediation as Change Management

At the outset, we have two (or sometimes more) parties in dispute. Hostility, rancour, and frustration - not to mention escalating cost - are frequent bedfellows. The end position we seek is of a course a resolution of the dispute. We may not achieve a state of harmony, but hope the outcome will bring acceptance, a dissipation of negative emotions, and allow the parties to move on and to focus on other more positive aspects of their lives.

In order words, mediators seek to drive change; we can therefore usefully view mediation as an exercise in change management. The field of organisational psychology offers considerable guidance to mediators – and those advising the parties - across the phases of the mediation process, as well as to their timing. In this piece I’ll briefly explore some prominent theories of change management, and the insights mediators can harvest from them.

Mediation and Change Management

In essence, change management means the adoption of a structured approach to assist individuals, groups, teams, or entire organisations move from a current state to a desired future state. Mediation can be viewed as a specific type of transition – from disagreement and tension to agreement and resolution. Whether in an organisational context or a mediation, the process requires management of human emotions, overcoming resistance, and fostering better communication.

The Stages of Change

Let’s take the overall process first. A useful lens through which mediation can be viewed is the ADKAR model developed by the change facilitation firm Prosci. The elements of ADKAR - Awareness, Desire, Knowledge, Ability, and Reinforcement – are one potential representation of the different phases the mediator must guide the parties through; by building awareness of the conflict, fostering a desire for resolution, imparting knowledge on the ways it might be resolved (and the potential consequences if resolution is not achieved), helping develop the ability to engage in productive dialogue, and ensuring reinforcement of the final agreements. Understanding these steps, and the accompanying emotional responses of the parties, can help mediators to anticipate the ways in which the parties might react, and help them to guide the process more effectively.

An alternative representation for the mediation process is John Kotter's Eight Steps model. The elements of this model include the need to create a sense of urgency (helping the parties to realise the need for change i.e. resolution), the formation of a guiding coalition (establishing the mediator’s role), communicating a vision (the shared goals for the parties in the mediation), and empowering broad-based action (harnessing the agency of the parties in crafting and shaping their own solutions). Once again, the correspondence or mapping to a traditional view of the mediation process where the mediator builds trust, facilitates communication and dialogue, and builds momentum for lasting change is clear.

Resistance to Change

In many exercises of transition or change, whether behavioural change, change in attitudes, roles, structures or circumstances, people often resist, and mediation is no different. Overcoming such resistance is therefore a skill mediators must acquire and also deploy frequently. Kurt Lewin’s Change Management Model is one such approach, comprising three sequential elements of "Unfreezing, Changing, and Refreezing". The “unfreezing” stage is all about helping the parties to recognise the need for resolution (thereby breaking down their resistance to change). “Changing” is the essence of mediation, exploring new perspectives and potential solutions, and building a coalition around the way forward. The "refreezing" phase focuses on solidifying new agreements and ensuring they are sustainable. The final element can sometimes be underemphasised in mediation, as in part it plays out in the weeks and months after the mediation day has ended.

Similarly, the widely known Kübler-Ross change curve – initially formulated to understand the process of grieving – offers a helpful parallel of the stages in a mediation process. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance are familiar to anyone with experience of mediation. They can also give us a sense of the longer view of mediation; the events leading up to mediation, the right time to embark upon mediation, and the emotional adjustment which will continue in the parties in the aftermath of the mediation.

Transformational Leadership and Mediation

Mediators are leaders. Not leaders for business as usual though; they are transformational leaders. Just as is sometimes required of the leader in a large organisation, they inspire change by encouraging parties to move beyond entrenched positions and to reimagine their relationships. Once such theory of transformational leadership is that of Burns. According to this formulation, key aspects are intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration, both of which can be crucial in mediation. Intellectual stimulation involves encouraging parties to explore innovative solutions, while individualised consideration ensures that the emotional and psychological needs of all participants are addressed.

Alternative Philosophies

In “Philosophies of Organisational Change” Aaron Smith and Fiona Graetz present a range of paradigms or philosophies – perspectives - through which we might understand the underlying or inherent dynamics of a process of change. Once again, the approach is readily applicable to mediation, whether in terms of the process overall, or individual stages. We might categorise these philosophies as teleological, dialectical, lifecycle or evolutionary.

The teleological philosophy views change as a goal-driven process, where organisations (or individuals in mediation) identify a desired end state and work towards it through planning and action. Mediators, in this construction, help parties define the goals of the mediation process - what a successful resolution looks like - and guide them through steps to achieve it. This parallels goal-setting techniques often used in teleological change management.

The dialectical philosophy is essentially about conflict. Mediation typically involves conflicting interests, making the dialectical perspective particularly relevant. This philosophy views change as the result of opposing forces interacting, much like two disputing parties in mediation. Mediators work to reconcile these oppositions, not by suppressing one side but by finding a synthesis or compromise, just as dialectical change results from the interaction of contradictions.

In the case of the life cycle philosophy, change is treated as a natural, sequential process. Translated to mediation, this can be reflected in the stages disputants go through - from initial conflict to resolution - similar to Lewin's "Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze" model. Mediators facilitate this progression, helping parties move through stages of recognition, negotiation, and resolution, aligning with the life cycle of change.

Finally, the evolutionary philosophy depicts change as a gradual adaptation to external conditions, often driven by competition and external pressures. In mediation, external factors (e.g., organisational policies, societal expectations) may push parties toward resolution. A mediator using this perspective would focus on helping the parties adapt incrementally to new realities rather than expecting a sudden, radical shift.

Insights for Mediators

Giving consideration to these change management theories, and perhaps replaying their own mediation experiences in light of the insights they offer, mediators can enhance their ability to anticipate resistance, structure the mediation process and perhaps most importantly to facilitate lasting change. Additionally, for the parties’ legal representatives, a change management perspective can help to suggest the appropriate time to embark upon mediation, and to understand the emotional transition their clients may undergo.

Change is hard, and mediation often involves asking people to alter their expectations, emotions, or behaviours. Understanding why people resist change helps mediators manage this resistance more effectively. Change management theories offer structured frameworks that can help mediators design their processes more efficiently, ensuring that all parties are ready to move forward and that any agreements reached will be sustainable. Finally, like any change managers, mediators need to ensure that the resolutions they help create are accepted and implemented. Applying reinforcement strategies (as seen in Lewin’s and ADKAR models) can help disputants commit to the changes made during mediation.

References:

• Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. Harper & Row.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
• Kübler-Ross, E. (1969). On Death and Dying. Simon & Schuster.
• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; equilibrium and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
• Prosci. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and our Community. Prosci Learning Center Publications.
• Smith, A., & Graetz, F. (2011). Philosophies of Organizational Change. Edward Elgar Publishing.