As mediation increases in popularity and is being recognised as an effective dispute resolution mechanism many companies are now training in-house staff, particularly Human Resources employees, to become mediators and to assist in resolving workplace disputes.

There are upsides and downsides to this approach.

On the upside, training in-house staff makes companies more aware of the fact that conflict can and does occur in the workplace and having someone who is familiar with resolution skills, can be of great assistance.

This is particularly the case where minor disputes emerge and these can be mediated informally by a member of staff between the disputing parties.

Another advantage to having an internal mediator is that they are alert to the types of questions that should and should not be asked during situations such as employee performance reviews and other one-to-one conversations.

However, there are also downsides to this approach:

1. Training – “Trained” does not necessarily mean experienced. For most in-house staff, the training is usually basic and does not equip them to deal with more complex disputes. Nor might they have the time that is necessary to devote solving the problem. This has the effect of doing a disservice to mediation. Issues that may have been resolved with the aid of an experienced mediator are not and this creates a negative image of mediation and causes staff to lose confidence in the experience.
   
2. Impartiality – It is very difficult for an internal mediator to be regarded as completely impartial or neutral, especially in the eyes of the disputing parties. Even if the disputing parties have had no direct contact with the in-house mediator, there is sometimes the suspicion that the mediator is acting in the best interests of the company and not the disputing parties.
   
3. Another concern is that even if the disputing parties do not work with the in-house mediator now, there is a possibility that they may be working together in the future and there is a reluctance to divulge information to a potential colleague.
   
4. Confidentiality – which is a foundation stone of mediation is sometimes called into question when in-house mediators are used. While they might never reveal the details of what was said during mediation, there is knowledge that the in-house mediator, knows what was said during mediation. This, coupled with the fear of a lack of impartiality (see above), tends to act as a bottle-stop to a free flow of conversation, which is essential to the process.
   
5. Behaviour – Disputing employees behave differently with an internal mediator than an external mediator, and this is due to their perception of the mediator as a fellow employee.  Similarly, the internal mediator is also likely to behave differently than an external mediator for the same reason.
   
6. And it is often the case that internal mediators feel pressure – whether real or imaginary – that they are working for the company and not for the disputing parties and that it is their job to solve the dispute at all costs.
   
7. Duality – For all the reasons just listed, it is common for an internal mediator to be seen as wearing two hats (a) company employee and (b) mediator and for many, (a) is the bigger hat. This flies in the face of the perception of a mediator being a completely independent and neutral third party.

These situations can often lead to staff being unwilling to choose mediation as they otherwise might. And this then defeats the purpose of the company having invested time and money into training staff.

There is no doubt that training for managers and staff in conflict resolution will help them better deal with minor workplace conflicts that can and should be resolved informally.

However, for a more complex disputes to have a chance of success, parties should have access to a neutral, impartial, and unbiased mediator, who is external to the company and has no vested interest in any shape or form as to the outcome.

It has been suggested that perhaps one solution to this situation is that where a company has an internal mediator, disputing parties should also be given the option of choosing an external mediator if they so wish.

This could easily be done by inserting a clause into employment contracts and company handbooks on policies and procedures, that will allow disputing parties to make their own decision as to whether they want to use an internal or external mediator.