It rarely starts with an incident. A piece of feedback lands badly. A decision is taken without explanation. Someone stops being copied on things. Conversations get shorter, then move entirely to email, then stop. Six months later there is a grievance, a certificate, or a resignation — and everyone involved can name the moment it could have been fixed.
Handling the Asymmetry Honestly
Every reporting-line mediation carries an imbalance: one person writes the appraisal, allocates the work and influences the other’s career. Pretending otherwise guarantees a hollow agreement, so it is designed for. Individual meetings come first — often more than one with each person — so the employee can speak without the manager present and vice versa. The terms state expressly that participation and anything said cannot be used in performance management or appraisal, that declining to agree an outcome is not misconduct, and that nothing goes on a personnel file beyond the agreed way forward. The employee is encouraged to take their own advice, from a solicitor or their union, and a support person can attend where that helps. HR is usually not in the joint session — in the participants’ minds HR is frequently part of the story, as the function that did or did not act, and its presence changes what people say; its role is normally to commission, agree the terms, be told the outcome and implement. What genuinely defeats this process is not imbalance but fear, which is a different thing and is assessed candidly at the outset.
Nobody Has to Be Wrong — and What Gets Written Down
The usual starting position is that both people believe they have behaved reasonably. The manager thinks they have been managing performance appropriately — and frequently that is entirely true, since reasonable and appropriate management of performance or conduct is not bullying. The employee experiences the same conduct as singling out, undermining or exclusion. Both accounts can be sincerely held, and a process that had to determine which was correct would take months and satisfy nobody. Mediation never asks that question. It makes no findings, requires no apology and demands no concession about the past; it asks only what each person will do differently from here. Then it writes that down concretely, because vague agreements fail: not “communication will improve” but a fifteen-minute check-in each Monday with priorities confirmed by email afterwards; not “mutual respect” but how feedback is given, how disagreement is raised at the time rather than accumulated, how work is allocated, what each person will stop doing, and what is dealt with in writing versus in conversation. Plus what happens if it slips, and a review point some weeks out — because the test is not the meeting, it is whether the arrangement held. Where the employee is already on certified leave, mediation often forms part of a workable return plan, provided participation is genuinely voluntary and timed to respect medical advice.
A Reporting Line Going Quiet?
The stage where this is cheapest to fix is exactly the stage where nobody calls anyone. Ten lines on the situation, everyone involved and the employer entity for the conflicts check.
Call 01 5827148