Workplace Mediation: Caucus or No Caucus?

One of the age old debates about mediation is whether the mediator should insist that the parties stick together throughout the mediation process. I have read a post recently on linked in suggesting that this is the standard approach being taught by Harvard. This is an adaptation of Folger and Busch's The Promise of Mediation - a book that strongly suggests that caucus is a barrier to transformative mediation.

Let me suggest that this is a tautology that is based on a very narrow idea about what mediation is all about.

Much of the work that I do involves restoring relationships in the midst of mutually experienced complex trauma, within a culture of conflict in a workplace. This has a number of implications:

First, because this is an exercise in culture change, there is a great deal that must happen organizationally that will involve discussions with people who are not necessarily experiencing the complex interpersonal trauma, To put this another way, part of the conflict needs to be managed organizationally - and this does not necessarily require the parties to be in the room at all. In fact often the interpersonal conflict is a symptom of a challenge in this workplace culture.

Second, while the conflict might present as interpersonal, it is often (almost always) more than that - it involves group dynamics and others are partaking in the complex trauma. This will lead us to consider the role that others have to play in both the generation and resolution of conflict. To fully consider this, we need to talk with those other people - and usually need to talk with them separately from those who present as being most in conflict.

Third, workplace relationships can often last much longer than marriages. There is often a history to such relationships that form a major part of the present conflict. Perceived injurious events and negative attributions pile up on each other, reinforcing their dominant discourses (usually, that they are the victim or hero and the other person is the villain).

In my experience, breaking down this dominant discourse is a process that involves contributions from the whole workplace culture. It also requires a careful program of individual empowerment and recognition.

While much can be accomplished by sticking the parties in the room and facilitating a discussion with them, in my experience, that is something that only happens successfully after a great deal of preparation.

I completely understand the dangers of working individually with the parties first. There is a risk that the individual sessions might reinforce their dominant discourses. There is also the risk that the parties will not be empowered by the responsibility of managing the conflict between the two of them.

These risks have to be carefully weighed in the workplace context, using a trauma-informed approach. Is the combative fight mode sufficiently moderated so that the parties will not further traumatize each other or themselves? For many workplace conflicts, this does not happen without considerable preparatory work with each party and with the organization itself.

Having said all of the above, I think that once the parties are properly prepared, then it is important to minimize the use of caucus so as to confer upon the parties the responsibility to manage their own conflict.

Still, I have often found a place for caucus even after extensive preparations. Keeping in mind that workplace conflict that reaches the point of third party intervention is likely accompanied by a history of complex trauma. The parties will need breaks in their discussions. They will need time to reflect individually without the other person in the room. There may be intense situations that require the parties to "cool off". And frankly, the mediator may need to take a mental health break.

So if mediation is viewed as a simple 3 hour transaction, then perhaps there is an argument to be made for requiring the parties to stay in the same room. Realistically, however, very few workplace conflicts are so simple that they can be resolved in a three hour session.

I recommend a purposive approach to this question. Instead of asking whether caucus should be viewed or not, let's instead consider when caucus or individual sessions should be used.

To find out more about our approaches at Workplace Fairness International, visit our web site at:

https://workplacefairness.ca/