What Became Clear Only Later

In my previous article on common pitfalls in workplace mediation, I described patterns that tend to emerge when conflicts are addressed too narrowly or too quickly. This case from my early practice illustrates these dynamics particularly clearly.

How We Entered the Case

I was asked to support a workplace mediation after tensions had developed between two team members. In my initial conversation with my client, their manager, I received background information on the situation and the expectation was clear: their working relationship needed to improve. At that stage, the situation was understood as a conflict between two individuals, and that framing seemed sufficient to proceed.

Only as the process unfolded did it become clear that the manager had not fully grasped the nature of the dispute at the outset (#1 Clarify the dispute). What had appeared to be a personal conflict was tied to organisational questions that only emerged later, and it became clear that not all relevant people had been involved from the start (#2 Decide who must participate).

What Emerged in the Process

The mediation itself started smoothly. Communication improved quickly, misunderstandings were clarified, and emotional tension eased. On a relational level, the process worked well. The two participants were able to rebuild trust and re-establish a functional working relationship.

As the conversations deepened, another layer became visible. While the relationship improved, the impact of unresolved issues on the wider team and the daily workflow became increasingly clear. What was at stake was not only how the two individuals interacted, but how unresolved role questions affected cooperation, decision-making and efficiency (#2 Decide who must participate).

The limits of the original mandate became evident. The mediation had been set up, at the client’s request, to focus on the relationship between two individuals. What now surfaced were questions that could not be resolved within that frame. The mandate had not been defined broadly enough to address organisational responsibilities once they emerged (#4 Set a clear mandate).

The mediation improved the working relationship, but the structural root causes of the conflict were not resolved.

Where Confidentiality Became a Constraint

Once these structural issues surfaced, confidentiality became a real constraint. From the participants’ perspective, the mediation had achieved what felt possible: communication had improved, tensions had eased, and there were no immediate conflicts.

What was missing was a shared understanding of what leaving the structural issues unaddressed might mean in practice. Possible consequences such as reassignment, escalation or termination had never been discussed. In the absence of this context, continuing the mediation appeared optional rather than necessary. For the employees, raising these issues beyond the initial scope would also have meant initiating a conversation with management without knowing whether there was openness for it - and risking to trigger consequences that felt difficult to anticipate. As a result, motivation to continue diminished (#3 Assess the impact and secure participant engagement).

Approaching my client directly was not an option. Doing so would have meant breaking the confidentiality that had enabled open dialogue in the first place. The protected space supported honesty and trust, but it also meant that the organisational dimension of the conflict initially remained outside the employer’s awareness. This tension sat precisely at the intersection of confidentiality and communication (#5 Confidentiality and Communication).

Revisiting the Frame

Closing this gap required careful handling. The boundaries of confidentiality meant that I could not share anything from the mediation with the employer - not the content, not the dynamics, and not even the fact that organisational issues had surfaced. At the same time, it became clear that the situation could not be resolved without organisational involvement. I therefore had to find a way to bring the employer back to the table, and to secure a mandate to do so, without disclosing why. The conversations remained deliberately general and focused on creating openness to enter the process, rather than on the case itself.

In parallel, I worked with the employees to explore whether and how they would be willing to involve the employer at all. This was not about substance, but about readiness: whether they were prepared to allow the conversation to move beyond their relationship and into an organisational context. Only after this groundwork was it possible to bring everyone to the table and address the structural questions directly. The issues themselves were not unusual. What made the process demanding was the lack of clarity at the beginning.

Takeaway

Looking back, this case made one thing very clear: workplace mediation cannot rely on an overly simplified initial framing. If the dispute is not fully understood, if not everyone who needs to be involved is identified, and if the mandate does not allow the process to expand when organisational issues emerge, mediation will inevitably reach its limits. Good mediation does not avoid complexity. It prepares for it.

This case shows why mediation should not be commissioned simply to “send people to mediation” and hope the relationship will sort itself out. The pre-mediation phase matters: it is where the situation is explored and the scope of the mediation is defined. If this preparation is insufficient, confidentiality may prevent you from ever hearing the very truths you need to know to effectively improve performance.