Prompt:

You are an expert workplace mediator mediating a conflict between two colleagues Mel and Sue. The following describes the scenario that you are mediating: Mel and Sue were employed by a medium sized firm headquartered in Europe with a small sales office in the UK. Sue had been with the company for many years and had set up all the sales support systems and processes for the UK office. Due to growth Mel had joined recently bringing extra resource and fresh ideas to sales support. After a promising start cracks had started to show and Sue and Mel’s manager (based overseas) started to receive moans from Sue complaining that Mel wasn’t following process. The manager spoke to them both but without effect and the flashpoint came with a stand up argument in the office. As the mediator you have met individually with Mel and Sue and all have agreed to proceed to a full mediation session. You are conducting the mediation. Please describe how you would deal with the following 5 scenarios that I will put to you individually.

​

1. At the beginning of the session each participant is given time to state without interruption to the other how they see things, the impact on them and how they would like things to be. Mel has gone first and after speaking for a couple of minutes Sue says ‘how can you say that it’s just lies’. Mel says ‘it’s not lies’ you are the one who is lying and they start to talk over each other.

2. When we are talking about the stand up argument in the office Sue says she challenged Mel because Mel had been providing information to one of the Sales team that Mel was supporting, so she was doing something which was Sue’s job. Mel said she was just trying to be helpful. Sue says she doesn’t believe Mel and that Mel has been after her job from the start and wants Sue out so she can take over. Mel says this isn’t the case and starts crying and finds it difficult to continue.

3. Mel and Sue continue to present different perspectives of the situations they discuss and do not believe that the other was not acting maliciously. Eventually Sue says she doesn’t see the point in continuing the mediation as it is clearly not going anywhere and we may as well stop and the managers will have to decide who gets sacked.

4. When they are discussing concerns Mel raises an issue that she is worried that despite having an Agreement to Mediate in place where they have both confirmed they will keep the mediation confidential, she is concerned that Sue will leak details as she knows the sales team really well and several are good friends. Sue says she won’t but Mel is struggling to accept this as sufficient comfort.

5. Later in the mediation Mel and Sue are talking about what they want to agree with each other going forward. They agree that they need to meet weekly to talk through what each of them are working on so they are up to speed on what is going on in the whole department. Mel suggests an hour at 8.30 on Friday. This doesn’t work for Sue as she has to take her grandchildren to school and could not be there there before 9.00 but she does want to have the meeting.

 

Answer to 1:

Here’s how I, as the mediator, would handle that situation step by step:

1. Intervene calmly but firmly

As soon as they begin talking over each other, I would step in .

“Okay, I’m going to stop you both there for a moment.”
I’d use a steady tone and open hand gesture to re-establish control of the space.

2. Reaffirm the ground rules

Once they pause, I’d briefly remind them of the agreement we made at the start about uninterrupted speaking:

“We agreed that each of you would have a chance to speak without interruption. It’s really important that we stick to that so that both of you feel fully heard. Mel has the floor at the moment, and Sue, you’ll have your turn next to respond.”

I’d keep this neutral — not blaming either of them — and I’d avoid language that suggests one is “in the wrong.”

3. Re-establish psychological safety

If emotions are still high, I might pause the process for a moment to ground them both:

“I can hear that both of you feel very strongly about what’s being said, and that’s understandable. This is exactly why we’re here — to get those frustrations out safely and then look at how to move forward.”

This helps normalise the emotion while reminding them of the purpose of mediation.

4. Reset the structure

I’d then return to the process:

“Let’s go back to where we were. Mel, please finish what you were saying. Sue, I’ll make sure you have your full chance to share your view straight afterwards without interruption.”

If needed, I might suggest shorter turns (“Let’s take this in smaller chunks”) to prevent things boiling over again.

5. Address emotional undercurrents later

When Sue’s turn comes, I’d pay attention to any factual disputes (“lies,” “not true”) and reframe them to reduce the emotional charge:

“I can see there’s disagreement about what happened. For now, rather than deciding who’s right or wrong, let’s focus on understanding how each of you experienced it.”

That helps shift them from accusation to perspective-taking — one of the core aims of mediation.

​

Answer to 2:

Here’s how I would manage that moment as the mediator — it’s a pivotal emotional point in the session, and how it’s handled can make the difference between escalation and breakthrough:

1. Pause and create space for emotion

The first thing is to when Mel starts crying.
I would gently step in:

“Let’s take a moment here.”
“Mel, I can see this is really upsetting for you — please take your time.”

Silence can be powerful. I’d give Mel a few moments to compose herself, offer tissues if available, and avoid rushing her or focusing everyone’s attention on the tears.

If appropriate, I might check quietly:

“Would you like a short break, or are you okay to continue in a minute?”

The goal is to show care and maintain dignity, without making it dramatic or shifting all the focus away from the process.

2. Contain the emotional tone

I would also glance towards Sue and calmly set a boundary through tone and body language:

“Let’s just give Mel a moment, Sue.”

This keeps the space safe for both of them — ensuring Sue doesn’t feel blamed, but also that Mel’s emotion isn’t challenged or dismissed.

3. Reframe what’s been said

Once Mel is settled enough to continue, I’d move from accusation and defence to underlying needs and perceptions.

“What I’m hearing is that Sue, you felt your role or responsibilities were being stepped on, and Mel, you were trying to be helpful but that’s been interpreted differently. I also hear that the suggestion you were trying to take Sue’s job has really upset you.”

This reframing acknowledges both positions either or reinforcing the accusation.

4. Reset focus on understanding rather than accusation

I would then guide them gently away from motive-based statements (“you were after my job”) toward what each person at that point:

“Rather than trying to decide anyone’s motive, let’s look at what was going on for each of you at that time.
Sue, what was it that made you feel your job was being threatened?
Mel, what was your intention when you were helping the Sales team?”

This invites each to express their reality, shifting from blame to explanation.

5. Use the emotional moment constructively

Later in the session, I’d revisit this incident as an opportunity for empathy:

“Mel, you were very upset earlier when Sue said she thought you were trying to take her job. Can you help Sue understand what was behind those tears?”
“Sue, can you share what makes you feel so strongly that your position was under threat?”

Handled sensitively, this can become a breakthrough moment — where both realise they’ve been reacting to and , not necessarily to facts.

 

Answer to 3:

This is a classic “crisis of confidence” moment in mediation — when one party feels stuck and wants to walk away. How I respond here is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the process and the sense of safety for both participants.

Here’s how I would handle it step by step:

1. Pause the flow and acknowledge Sue’s frustration

I’d stop the conversation gently but decisively to acknowledge the emotion and regain calm:

“Okay, Sue, I can hear how frustrated you’re feeling right now. It sounds like you’re really doubtful that this is helping.”

This validation is essential — not agreement with her statement, but recognition of her emotional state. It helps defuse tension and shows that her feelings are being heard.

2. Normalise the moment of impasse

I’d then reframe what’s happening as a normal part of mediation:

“It’s actually quite common for people to hit this kind of point in mediation — especially when the issues are deep and have been going on for a while. It can start to feel like you’re not getting anywhere, but often this is just before we start to uncover what’s really driving things.”

This both calms and instills a little hope, signalling that I’ve seen this before and that it’s workable.

3. Reconnect to shared purpose

Next, I’d remind both participants why they agreed to be there:

“You both said earlier that what you wanted most was to be able to work professionally together again — not to go through a disciplinary or lose your jobs. Mediation is your one chance to have control over how things move forward rather than leaving it to the managers. Are you both still open to seeing if we can make a bit more progress before you make a final decision?”

The key here is — not pressure. People resist being forced, but they’ll often re-engage if they feel ownership of the process.

4. If Sue still resists, offer a contained step

If Sue remains reluctant, I’d lower the bar to make continued participation feel manageable:

“How about we take just ten more minutes to explore what’s feeling most stuck for you, Sue, and then we’ll decide together whether to continue? Would that feel okay?”

This small commitment often reopens dialogue without her feeling trapped.

5. Shift focus from blame to future options

Once she’s calmer, I’d pivot the conversation toward practical needs:

“What would need to happen — realistically — for you to feel that staying in this working relationship is possible?”

And to Mel:

“Mel, what would you need from Sue for that to feel workable for you too?”

This reframes the stuckness into a problem-solving exercise rather than a verdict on the past.

6. If Sue ultimately refuses to continue

If, after reasonable effort, Sue remains adamant about ending, I’d respect that choice but clarify consequences:

“I respect that decision, Sue. Before we close, I just want to be clear — if mediation stops here, it means the control over what happens next will go back to management, and you’ll both lose the opportunity to influence the outcome yourselves. Are you sure that’s what you want?”

This ensures the decision is informed and voluntary — which often prompts a pause for reflection and, occasionally, a change of heart.

 

Answer to 4:

Excellent — this is a really realistic and delicate situation. Concerns about confidentiality often surface in workplace mediations, particularly when one participant feels vulnerable about reputation or trust. Here’s exactly how I would handle it:

1. Acknowledge and validate Mel’s concern

First, I’d signal that Mel’s concern is legitimate — not overreactive.

“Mel, it’s completely understandable that you’d be anxious about confidentiality, especially when colleagues know each other well. Many people worry about this — it’s one of the reasons we take confidentiality so seriously in mediation.”

This reassures Mel that she’s not being unreasonable, which helps her feel safer to stay engaged.

2. Reaffirm the confidentiality agreement clearly

Next, I would restate what confidentiality means in practical, plain language — for both of them:

“Just to be absolutely clear — confidentiality in this mediation means that neither of you should discuss what is said here with anyone else, including colleagues or managers, unless you both agree to do so.
The only thing that goes back to management is that mediation took place and, if you both agree, any joint outcomes or agreements. Nothing else.”

Then I’d reinforce the mutual obligation:

“This isn’t just about trusting each other personally — it’s also about respecting the process you both signed up to.”

3. Invite Sue to give a direct reassurance

Since Sue has already said she won’t share details, I’d slow the pace slightly and make the reassurance more deliberate and explicit:

“Sue, could you just say in your own words what you’re committing to in terms of confidentiality — so Mel can hear that directly from you?”

Sue might respond with something like:

“I won’t talk about this to anyone in the sales team or elsewhere — I understand it’s private.”

Having that verbalised explicitly, in front of the mediator, helps anchor accountability and builds a trace of trust.

4. Help Mel articulate what reassurance she actually needs

If Mel still seems uneasy, I’d help her clarify what would make her feel safer:

“Mel, I can hear this still feels uncomfortable for you. Can you say what would help you feel more confident about confidentiality — is it needing Sue’s reassurance in a particular way, or wanting clarity about what’s okay to share and what isn’t?”

Sometimes people want the reassurance framed differently (“I won’t even mention we argued”), or they need to confirm boundaries (“We can say mediation took place, but not what was said”).

5. Translate reassurance into a small, concrete agreement

I would capture their shared understanding as a mini-agreement within the mediation:

“So, we’re agreed that neither of you will discuss the content of this mediation with anyone else in the office or management team, except anything you both later decide can be shared jointly. Are you both comfortable with that?”

That converts reassurance into something formal and tangible — reducing anxiety.

6. Strengthen mutual accountability and closure

Finally, I’d reframe this positively to both:

“Confidentiality works both ways — it protects each of you equally. By keeping this private, you’re each showing respect for the other and helping make any agreement we reach more likely to stick.”

Then I’d move gently back to the main discussion.

 

Answer to 5:

Perfect — this is a good example of a late-stage, negotiation moment, where the mediator’s role is to keep momentum and help them practise collaborative problem-solving in real time. Here’s how I would handle it:

1. Acknowledge the progress

Before diving into the scheduling snag, I’d reinforce that they’ve reached an important point:

“It’s great to hear you both agreeing that regular weekly meetings are needed — that’s a really constructive step forward.”

This affirmation keeps the atmosphere positive and reminds them they’re now , not opponents.

2. Normalise the difference

Next, I’d frame the timing conflict as a simple logistical issue, not a new disagreement:

“It sounds like the idea works for both of you — it’s just the timing that needs a bit of adjustment. Let’s see what could work for both schedules.”

That prevents either person feeling criticised or obstructive.

3. Encourage collaborative exploration

I’d guide them to generate options together rather than turning to me for a solution:

“Sue, 8.30 doesn’t work for you because of school drop-off. What’s the earliest you could comfortably make it?”
“Mel, if it were 9.00 instead of 8.30, how would that affect your day?”

This models a respectful negotiation style and keeps ownership of the solution with them.

4. Support flexibility and compromise

If needed, I might help them broaden the frame:

“Would a different day or a slightly shorter meeting help — say 9.00 on Fridays, or 8.30 another day?”
“Or perhaps you could alternate times week-to-week?”

I’d let them explore until they find a workable solution they both genuinely accept.

5. Anchor the agreed solution clearly

Once they reach an agreement (for instance, “Fridays at 9.00 for 45 minutes”), I’d restate it for clarity:

“So we’re agreed — you’ll meet each Friday at 9.00 for up to 45 minutes to discuss progress and plans for the week ahead. Is that correct?”

Both confirm — that locks the commitment in.

6. Reinforce the collaborative success

Finally, I’d highlight the significance of what they’ve just done:

“That’s a really good example of how you can sort things out together — you raised a problem, listened to each other’s needs, and came up with something that works for both. That’s exactly the approach that will keep this relationship on track.”

This closes the mediation on a constructive, empowering note and leaves both with a positive experience of resolving a difference jointly — which is often more valuable than the specific solution itself.

​