“Let both sides speak and find a compromise” sounds reasonable. It becomes less useful when one person can affect the other’s opportunities, when a factual problem needs a decision, or when the proposed compromise leaves the underlying difficulty untouched.
A mediation-style conversation is about helping people examine a disagreement and negotiate workable arrangements. It does not require pretending that every action was equally justified. Nor does every conflict belong in a joint meeting.
Use Acuity Insights’ official preparation resources first. This independent exercise explores a workplace process; it is not an official Casper response pattern or a claim about scoring.
The production team dispute
Original fictional scenario. A community radio team is producing an interview series for release on Friday. Jo, the senior producer, wants audio edits available every evening until publication. Ren, a new volunteer editor, wants the script and edit requests frozen on Tuesday because Ren works evenings later in the week.
The team previously agreed that Ren would complete one scheduled editing session on Thursday morning. Jo has repeatedly added requests outside that arrangement. In a group meeting, Jo says, “People who are flexible get the best references.” Ren stops speaking and later asks to leave the project.
You coordinate production logistics. You can propose a workflow and request help from the volunteer manager, but you do not supervise Jo or control references. Jo suggests you bring everyone together that afternoon and tell Ren to be more adaptable.
How would you approach the conflict?
A position is not the whole problem
Jo’s stated position is that editing must be available every evening. Possible underlying interests include accuracy, responsiveness to interviewees and confidence that the final programme will be ready. Those remain hypotheses until Jo explains them.
Ren’s stated position is a Tuesday freeze. Possible interests include predictable hours, completing paid work and avoiding an open-ended volunteer commitment. Again, ask rather than assign motives.
The positions appear incompatible. Some underlying interests may not be. A fixed Thursday editing session could accommodate corrections identified earlier, while cosmetic additions wait for another episode. But this possibility only works if the production plan genuinely allows it and Ren freely accepts the remaining work.
The Acas workplace mediation guide describes facilitative mediation as exploring interests and evaluating options. That is process guidance from a UK employment context, not evidence that a particular compromise will work in this fictional team.
The pressure around references changes the process
Jo’s comment matters independently of the scheduling disagreement. Ren might reasonably worry that refusing extra hours will damage a future reference. A polite “yes” in front of Jo would not establish that the arrangement was freely accepted.
Do not diagnose Jo’s intent from one sentence. Do establish what was said, ask Ren about the effect, and raise the concern through the person responsible for volunteer supervision. You cannot personally guarantee that Jo will never retaliate. You can ask for reference decisions to be separated from this dispute, explain who will address concerns, and avoid promising protections you cannot deliver.
The Acas overview of mediation describes an impartial, voluntary process. In this case, those principles make a same-day meeting imposed on Ren a poor starting point. Explain the possible purpose and limits of a facilitated conversation separately to each person. Ask whether they want it and what would make participation workable.
Your logistics role also creates a tension: you need the programme finished. That may make you inclined to press Ren for agreement. An independent facilitator or volunteer manager may be better placed to lead the relationship discussion. You can still supply accurate scheduling information.
Critique the plausible compromise
Consider this response:
I would tell them that both have contributed to the conflict. Jo should reduce the requests by half, and Ren should stay late on two evenings. Then I would ask them to apologise and move on.
This allocates blame without establishing events. Halving the requests says nothing about whether they are essential. Two evenings may still conflict with Ren’s paid work. Requiring reciprocal apologies treats the reference comment as equivalent to setting a boundary, and “move on” closes discussion before the pressure has been addressed.
An alternative weak response is to promise absolute confidentiality. A coordinator should first explain the organisation’s actual arrangements and any limits on information sharing. Do not borrow confidentiality guarantees from a formal mediation service and apply them to an informal conversation you have just invented.
A worked response that separates the tasks
One defensible response would be:
I would speak with Ren privately before proposing a joint meeting, acknowledge the reference comment and ask what concerns Ren wants addressed. I would involve the volunteer manager in that issue and in deciding whether an independent facilitated conversation is suitable. Separately, I would ask Jo which edits are necessary for accuracy and which are optional, and confirm the hours Ren previously agreed to. If both want a working discussion, I would help them assess a plan that fits those hours, with another authorised editor handling later essential corrections if available. If no such cover exists, the team may need to reduce the episode’s scope or delay publication rather than make Ren’s extra work the assumed solution.
This response does not require Ren to prove personal hardship to retain an agreed boundary. It also does not assume Jo’s production concerns are illegitimate. Accuracy remains important; the organisation must decide how to meet that responsibility within actual staffing.
If the reference issue requires a formal decision, a collaborative meeting should not replace it. The Acas/CIPD guide also identifies limits to mediation, including situations in which managerial responsibility or an investigation is needed. Use the relevant organisational procedure rather than treating agreement as the only acceptable outcome.
Make an agreement testable
Suppose both people choose to continue a working discussion. An agreement such as “communicate better” is too vague to guide Thursday morning.
A more useful proposal might identify a single list of requests by Tuesday afternoon, label accuracy corrections separately from optional changes, and confirm the scope of the Thursday session. Someone with authority must own any changes that cannot fit. The team should agree when to check the arrangement and how to raise a new problem without reopening every boundary by default.
These are original options for this scenario, not universal mediation stages. The parties may reasonably reject them. An agreement to pause the project can be more honest than an apparent reconciliation that depends on unavailable labour.
Transfer exercise: change what must be decided
A different team has two equally senior volunteers disputing who promised a supplier an extra payment. The written record is unclear. One wants a joint conversation; the other wants the organisation to establish whether the payment was authorised before discussing their future working relationship.
Would you push for immediate compromise, establish the payment facts first, or run separate processes? Explain what each process can and cannot decide.
Reasoned feedback. A joint conversation may clarify misunderstandings, but it cannot manufacture authority to spend the organisation’s money. A factual review by the responsible person is defensible before deciding payment. A voluntary conversation about future communication could happen alongside or after that review, provided information-handling arrangements are clear. Refusing to bargain over an authorisation question is not necessarily unwillingness to cooperate.
For a different task, QuietStride’s role-boundaries guide examines when to involve someone with authority. Here, the central question is what a fair collaborative process can accomplish—and what remains someone else’s responsibility to decide.
Sources and further reading
- Acuity Insights: How to prepare for your Casper test — official preparation guidance.
- Acas: What mediation is and how it can help — impartiality and voluntary participation in workplace mediation.
- Acas/CIPD: Mediation—An Approach to Resolving Workplace Issues — facilitative process and situations requiring other responses; a 2013 guide, used for conceptual background.