State of the Art [606175]

State of the Art
Workplace Mediation: An
Underdeveloped Research Area
Katalien Bollen and Martin Euwema
In this article, we review the literature on workplace mediation. To
organize the literature in a logical way, we have relied primarily onthe model of Margaret Herrman and her colleagues and examine theimportant influence of culture and feedback loops on the practice ofworkplace mediation. Workplace mediation has become a frequentpractice in the United States, Europe, much of Asia, and Australia. Inthe literature, we have found various descriptions of this practice aswell as long lists of its assumed benefits, but empirical studies exam-ining the effectiveness of workplace mediation have been few; alimited number of studies have investigated which conditions ensurethe effectiveness of workplace mediation, and few studies have reliedon observations. As such, workplace mediation represents an under-developed research area. In this article, we describe the findings fromthe existing literature and offer suggestions for future research.
Key words: mediation, conflict resolution, workplace mediation,
labor mediation, employment disputes, workplace conflict.
Katalien Bollen is a PhD candidate in psychology at the University of Leuven in Leuven, Belgium.
Her e-mail address is [anonimizat].
Martin Euwema is a professor of organizational psychology at the University of Leuven. His e-mail
address is [anonimizat].
10.1111/nejo.12028
© 2013 President and Fellows of Harvard College Negotiation Journal July 2013 329

Introduction
In recent decades, organizations have realized the unavoidable reality of
workplace conflicts and their potentially destructive consequences.Employee turnover,medical costs,and absenteeism associated with interper-sonal conflict among employees can generate considerable expenses and lossof productivity for firms, while the disputants themselves often experiencea deterioration of their psychological and physical well-being (De Dreu 2008).In order to prevent or limit the negative consequences of conflict (Giebels andJanssen 2005; Dijkstra 2006; Herrman, Hollett, and Gale 2006), employershave launched mediation programs and offer mediation in order to solveworkplace conflicts in a constructive and nonjudicial way.
In the United States, important workplace mediation programs spon-
sored by such agencies as the Federal Equal Employment OpportunityCommission (EEOC) (Swendiman 2001; Zimmerman 2001) and the U.S.Postal Service (USPS) (Bush 2001; Bingham 2012) represent major mile-stones in the growth of workplace mediation.
In Europe, workplace mediation has recently been promoted by both
the European Commission (2002, 2004) and national governments. Centersoffering workplace mediation have been opened in such countries asFrance (e.g., Centre Resolution des Conflits), Italy, the Netherlands (e.g.,Result Mediation Centre), Germany, and the United Kingdom (e.g., Work-place Mediation UK) (Dolder 2004). In several European legislatures, media-tion has been incorporated in policies as a tool to solve conflicts in aconstructive way (e.g., the German Civil Code or Verbetering Poortwachterin the Netherlands).
But despite the increased promotion and implementation of media-
tion, there has been a lack of empirical research on workplace mediation.Few rigorous tests of the effects and effectiveness of workplace mediationexist. In this article, we examine the research that has been conducted andhow it has improved our understanding of workplace mediation and itseffectiveness; we also suggest areas in which future research and scholar-ship are needed.
Mediation is offered collectively (see Bingham and Chachere 2000;
Cutcher-Gershenfeld et al. 2007; Martinez-Pecino et al. 2008) as well asindividually, but in this article, we focus only on nonunionized workplace
disputes and/or on workplace mediations that fall outside the context ofcollective bargaining (Bingham et al. 2000; Bingham and Novac 2001).
First, we define workplace mediation and systematically review the
studies on workplace mediation while using the mediation model developedby Margaret Herrman, Nancy Hollett, and Jerry Gale (2006). This compre-hensive model takes a time sequential view of factors related to premediation,in situ mediation (the mediation process itself), and postmediation. We
conclude the article by suggesting directions for future research.
330 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Workplace Mediation
Like other types of mediation (commercial, family, community, environmen-
tal, or victim-offender) (Emery, Sbarra, and Grover 2005; Tang 2009), work-place mediation has proliferated as a popular dispute method. In the case ofworkplace mediation, the goal is to settle interpersonal employee conflictsarising out of a continuing or terminated employment relationship (Brim2001; Dolder 2004; Doherty and Guyler 2008). Workplace mediation mayseek to resolve disagreements over work conditions, conflicts betweenemployees, the reintegration of employees after a leave of absence (Shawet al. 2008), and disagreements about an employee’s termination. Theycan also address complaints about sexual harassment (Bond 1997; Oser2004–2005), discrimination (Stallworth, McPherson, and Rute 2001;McDermott and Ervin 2005), bullying (Doherty and Guyler 2008; Fox andStallworth 2009), multiparty conflicts and/or business-to-business conflicts(Rome 2003).
During workplace mediation, a third party accepted by the disputants
helps them discuss their issues and, it is hoped, grow to better understandeach other’s concerns. Typically, the mediator has no power to prescribeagreements or outcomes (Kressel and Pruitt 1989; Wall, Stark, and Standifer2001). Rather, the mediator helps the parties to determine what they
believe to be an acceptable solution for themselves (Oser 2004–2005;Goldman et al. 2008). In doing so, the mediator promotes open communi-cation as well as mutual understanding of each party’s underlying interests(Kressel 2006).
Mediation can be perceived as a coentrepreneurial business activity in
which parties contribute equally to the final resolution (Doherty andGuyler 2008). The growing use of mediation in the workplace reflectschanges in the relationship between employers and employees; as unionmembership has declined, collective employment relationships haveshifted to individual ones in which employees negotiate their own indi-vidual arrangements (Lipsky, Seeber, and Fincher 2003; Dolder 2004;Goldman 2011).
Like many other conflicts, workplace conflicts rarely require only a
legal solution. Often, intense emotions are involved that should be takeninto account in the search for a long-lasting and constructive solution.Mediation’s open and consensual approach helps parties to discuss theirunderlying emotions, concerns, and expectations. This not only stimulatesthe search for a mutually acceptable agreement but also promotes animproved relationship between the parties once the dispute has beensettled (which is not typically an outcome of arbitration) (Gourlay andSoderquist 1997–1998; Dolder 2004).
Employers may choose to implement workplace mediation for several
reasons. These include the following: the desire to
Negotiation Journal July 2013 331

• maintain the relationship,
• solve conflicts in an efficient and/or cost-effective manner,• prevent or limit the detrimental effects of conflict,• contribute to employees’ well-being and satisfaction,• increase disputants’ access to justice, and/or• help create a problem-solving corporate culture.
The literature on workplace mediation seems to assume that the
process has benefits, but few rigorous tests of the conditions under whichworkplace mediation might be effective – which could confirm thatassumption – have been implemented. To gain more insight in this area, weconducted an in-depth review of literature on workplace mediation.
We retrieved articles identified in reviews of mediation research more
generally (Wall and Lynn 1993; Wall, Stark, and Standifer 2001; Herrman2006; Wall and Dunne 2012) and through computer searches using Psyc-INFO, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar. In addition, we examined theproceedings of the International Association for Conflict Management toallow for the systematic inclusion of unpublished work. We used the fol-lowing terms to find pertinent articles: workplace mediation, labor media-tion, business mediation, organizational mediation, workplace conflict,employment dispute, employment dispute resolution, labor conflict, work-place mediator, labor mediator, mediation, bullying and mediation, discrimi-nation and mediation, sexual harassment and mediation, hierarchical laborconflict, and alternative dispute resolution. Then we identified additionalarticles from the reference lists of the papers we found in those searches.
We selected papers for further review if we found they include data or
information about the antecedents and/or conditions of workplace media-tion effectiveness. We restricted our search to papers published from 1992to 2012. We excluded articles that focused on collective conflicts, were notwritten in English, or focused on cases in which a manager or internalombudsmen acted as mediator instead of an external mediator (Pinkleyet al. 1995; Ross 1995; Oser 2004–2005; Tjosvold and Fang 2006).
We classified our review results into three categories:
• books;• literature reviews, theoretical articles, and opinion essays; and• empirical research articles.
We were surprised to find that only four books, fifteen theoretical
articles,and thirteen empirical research articles met our criteria for inclusion.For decades, governments, courts, and corporations have pressed for work-place mediation, and consequently it is regularly relied upon. But despite its
332 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

frequent use, in the last two decades only a limited number of studies have
been conducted on the process.
We found that the few books on workplace mediation are often based
on company practices and experiences with mediation (Lipsky, Seeber, andFincher 2003) (see Table One).
In addition, a substantial number of the scholarly articles on workplace
mediation are descriptive and focus on why workplace mediation should
be undertaken rather than on uncovering the conditions that contribute toits effectiveness (see Table Two).
We note that we found no articles reviewing the research on work-
place mediation. As Table Two indicates, the only review article addressesworkplace mediation in an indirect way: it refers to workplace mediation asa crucial tool for return-to-work coordinators facilitating the reintegrationof employees (Shaw et al. 2008).
Herrman’s Mediation Model
To gain insight into workplace mediation literature and to guide futureresearch, we rely on a model developed in 2006 by Margaret Herrman,Table One
Books on Workplace Mediation
Author (Year) Country Title
Anderson (2001) New Zealand Labour’s Labour Law: Labour
Law Reform in New Zealandunder a Labour Government
Brim (2001) United States Talks Replacing Torts in
Workplace Conflict: MoreBusinesses Relying onMediation
Doherty and
Guyler (2008)United
KingdomThe Essential Guide to
Workplace Mediation andConflict Resolution: RebuildingWorking Relationships
Lipsky, Seeber, and
Fincher (2003)United States Emerging Systems for Managing
Workplace Conflict: Lessonsfrom American Corporationsfor Managers and DisputeResolution Professionals
Negotiation Journal July 2013 333

Table Two
Literature Reviews, Theoretical Articles, and Opinion Essays on
Workplace Mediation
Author (Year)
(Country)Topic
A. Reviews
Shaw et al. (2008)
(U.S.)Literature review based on forty articles describing the role of
return-to-work (RTW) coordinators in trial programs andinterventions (among other kind of workplace mediation)designed to prevent workplace injury. Successful RTWcoordination may depend more on competencies in ergonomicjob accommodation, communication, and conflict resolutionthan on medical training.
B. Theoretical papers
and opinion essays
Bingham (2004)
(U.S.)Focuses on the use of workplace mediation to solve employment
disputes. Compared to arbitration, workplace mediation showsseveral benefits: it is efficient, perceived as fairer, produceshigh satisfaction and settlement rates, and provides disputantswith conflict-resolution skills. Collaboration of researchers withpractitioners (e.g., mediation providers and mediators) isnecessary to collect adequate quantitative and qualitative datato test these assumptions in an empirical way.
Bond (1997)
(U.S.)Suggests mediation as a method for resolving sexual harassment
disputes in the workplace because it provides maximumbenefits to all the parties involved (cost and time efficiency,empowerment, room for apologies) especially when therelationship will be continued.
Dolder (2004)
(United Kingdom)Examines the contribution of mediation to workplace justice.
Although it highlights the successful incorporation ofworkplace mediation in several continents, it urges caution onthe part of UK policy makers who may be seduced intoutilizing mediation to facilitate settlement for predominantlytactical reasons.
Fox and Stallworth
(2009)Looks at how to build a framework for two internal
organizational approaches to resolve and prevent workplacebullying: alternative dispute resolution and training. One wayto prevent and handle bullying is workplace mediation.
Goldman (2011)
(U.S.)Dispute system design and justice in employment dispute
resolution: mediation at the workplace. Reviews the results ofa longitudinal study of employment mediation fordiscrimination cases in the United States Postal Service(REDRESS program): 1,500 mediators, 66,000 complainants, and62,000 supervisors. Conclusion: a well-designed andimplemented mediation program can afford meaningfulworkplace justice and improve the workplace climate.
334 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Table Two
Continued
Author (Year)
(Country)Topic
B. Theoretical papers
and opinion essays
Gourlay and Soderquist
(1997–1998)(U.S.)Documents the increase in use of employment litigation and
mediation; describes the benefits, risks, and challenges.
Lipsky and Seeber
(1999)(U.S.)An excerpt from the article “The appropriate resolution of corporate
disputes: A report on the growing use of ADR by US corporations, ”which appeared in the 1998 issue of Cornell/PERC Institute onConflict Resolution. Discusses reasons for the use of alternativedispute resolution (ADR) and barriers to ADR. In a study of 530large corporations that had both mediation and arbitration inemployment disputants, the strongest support was for mediation,with managers noting that it allows more control over the processand preserves the relationship between the parties involved.
Oser (2004–2005)
(U.S.)An exploration of the concerns raised by the use of mandatory
internal dispute resolution (IDR) mechanisms in the workplace inorder to manage sexual harassment disputes.
Poitras, Belair, and
Byrne (2005)(Canada)Looks at the risk of inflated disciplinary action in the workplace,
which may be associated with use of workplace mediation as partof a dispute resolution system. It argues that some characteristics ofmediation may compound with some features of the workenvironment to create such a risk.
Rome (2003)
(U.S.)A guide to business-to-business mediation.
Stallworth, McPherson,
and Rute (2001)(U.S.)Discusses the significance of the use of mediation in addressing
discrimination at the workplace. The author emphasizes the needto create internal conflict management systems among companiesand to create a legal frame for employment dispute resolution. Alsodiscusses the key features of the U.S. Postal Service REDRESSprogram.
Swendiman (2001)
(U.S.)Reflects on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
mediation program and how it relates to disputants’ satisfaction aswell as quick and fair closure of issues.
Wiseman and
Poitras (2002)(Canada)Explores the role of power in workplace mediation and negotiation
dynamics, specifically, how mediators simultaneously balance poweramong the parties while respecting the hierarchical structure of anorganization. The authors suggest that if the mediationrequirements are not reconciled with the reality of theorganizational structure, the power struggle will continue.
Zimmerman (2001)
(U.S.)This article describes the mediation program (process, results, and the
role of mediators) of the EEOC.
Negotiation Journal July 2013 335

Nancy Hollett,and Jerry Gale.The model is similar to,but more extensive than,
models developed by James Wall (1981),Wall and Ann Lynn (1993),and EbenWeitzman and Patricia Flynn Weitzman (2000). Herrman’s (2006) model isgrounded in the assumption that the broader sociocultural context affects anyform of conflict management, but culture is not explicitly mentioned in themodel as a variable affecting mediation.As argued by Wall and Timothy Dunne(2012),we also wish to draw attention to the important role that culture canhave on the mediation process. (We will return to this point later.)
The model, displayed in Table Three, provides a time sequence of
premediation (T
0),in situ mediation (T m), and postmediation measures (T 1
and T 2).
First, T 0variables (listed in the first column) refer to sources of varia-
tion occurring before a mediation begins. They are also referred to as theantecedents of mediation. They include:
• personal characteristics (e.g., disputants’ and/or mediator age ,gender ,
mediator styles ,tactics ),
• disputant beliefs and attitudes (e.g., motivation to solve the conflict ),
• dispute characteristics (e.g., level of conflict escalation ), and
• the institutional context (e.g., voluntary versus mandatory mediation ).
T
mvariables (listed in the second column) pertain to the dynamics of
the mediation process including:
• factors that prime people to mediate effectively (e.g., experience of
voice ,recognition ,empowerment ,mediator empathy ),
• conditions of mediation (e.g., experience of procedural clarity ,justice ,
mediator neutrality ),
• problem-solving dynamics (e.g., active negotiation ), and
• the dynamics of decision making (e.g., disputants’ active involvement ,
mediator-driven closure ).
T1and T 2variables (respectively listed in the third and last column)
constitute short-term (T 1) and long-term (T 2) end products of mediation
such as:
• disputant beliefs and attitudes (e.g., satisfaction with mediation
process ,outcome ),
• characteristics of the conflict resolution (e.g., agreement reached or
not), and
• institutional indicators of outcomes (e.g., mediation efficiency, dura-
tion, cost ).
336 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Table Three
Herrman’s Comprehensive Mediation Model
T0Antecedents TmMediation Process T1Short-Term Outcomes T2Long-Term Outcomes
Personal characteristics Factors that prime readiness Disputant beliefs and attitudes Disputant beliefs and attitudes
• Disputant characteristics • Able to talk about perceptions
and feelings• Satisfaction with the
outcome, the process andthe mediator• Post-mediation evaluation
• Mediator characteristics • Feeling heard and understood • Satisfaction with judicial
system• Relationship change
• Perceived self-efficacy • Compliance orientation
• Clarity • Improved functioning• Mediator empathy • Reduced anxiety or fear• Hostile environment • Why case settled
Disputant beliefs and attitudes Procedural factors: Mediation
conditionsConflict resolved Conflict resolved
• Willingness to participate • Active participation • Agreement reached • Compliance with agreement
• Perceptions of voluntariness • Procedural clarity • Issues resolved • Restorative justice• Expectations and feelings
about the mediation• Global fairness and interactional
fairness• Distributive justice • Reduced recidivism
• Motivation to resolve • Mediator neutrality • Relationship changed
• Mediator process control
Dispute characteristics Procedural factors: Problem solving Institutional context
• Legal characteristics • Active negotiation • Institutional efficiency• Conflict characteristics • Talk about issues and needs • Institutional effectiveness• Interpersonal dynamics • Formulate options • Comparable cost
Institutional context Procedural factors: Decision making
• Program context • Clients shape decisions• Process access • Mediator-driven closure• Process efficiency• Process information
Negotiation Journal July 2013 337

At first glance, the model may appear linear (deterministic) or static
(fixed), but it offers a flexible framework and functions dynamically. Assuch, T
0variables not only affect the mediation process (T m) and its out-
comes (T 1,2), but at the same time short-term (T 1) and long-term (T 2)
mediation outcomes continuously generate feedback that sustains or modi-fies the mediation process (T
m) and the antecedent conditions (T 0). For
example, when skilled mediators realize that they are not reaching settle-ment (T
1) or when parties do not comply with the agreement in the long
term (T 2), they may consider using different tactics (T m) in a subsequent
mediation or may choose to broaden their mediation skills (T 0).
Mediation outcomes (T 1or T 2) (e.g., feeling unsatisfied with the
mediation ) may also affect parties’ willingness to participate in mediation
in the future (T 0) (e.g., refusal to participate in mediation ) or their
expectations and feelings about mediation (T 0) (e.g., mediation does not
work ). Similarly, the conditions a mediator creates during the mediation
(Tm) (e.g., procedural clarity, active participation ) affect the parties readi-
ness for mediation (T m) (e.g., whether parties feel able to talk openly
about their perceptions and feelings, whether parties feel they are beinglistened to ) as well as the mediation’s outcomes (T
1or T 2) (e.g., parties’
satisfaction or well-being ).
Mediation does not operate in a vacuum. The context or environment
in which mediation takes place affects the antecedent conditions of media-
tion (T 0), the mediation process (Tm), and the potential mediation out-
comes (T1and T 2). Context can include a society’s culture (Hofstede 2001;
House et al. 2004) as well as the immediate context, such as the organiza-tional climate (Tjosvold and Fang 2006; Wall and Dunne 2012).
The context or culture may affect the antecedents of mediation (T
0),
how disputants perceive or value mediation, their preferred ways of solvingthe conflict, their expectations of mediation, and how easy it is for them toparticipate in mediation. Data show, for example, that Chinese and Dutchemployees prefer (and expect) different types of help from a third party.Whereas Chinese employees report a higher preference for relational help,Dutch employees prefer (individual) emotional help from a third party(Giebels and Yang 2009). And certain characteristics of Belgian culture helpexplain the marked reluctance of Belgians to turn to mediation to settletheir workplace conflicts (Euwema, Bollen, and Prins 2008).
Similarly, mediators who come from different cultures tend to rely on
varying mediation tactics (T
0). For example, mediators from more collectiv-
ist cultures tend to emphasize harmony more than do their counterpartsfrom more individualistic cultures, use less assertive mediation tactics, andcall more on disputants to forgive or apologize (Kim et al. 1993; Callisterand Wall 1997). This can have important consequences for the mediationprocess (T
m) (communication, participation, process control, etc.) and both
short- (T 1) and long-term (T 2) mediation outcomes. Because Chinese and
338 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Dutch employees prefer different types of help from a third party (Giebels
and Yang 2009) (T 0), it is likely that they would evaluate similar mediator
tactics (T 0) or the mediation process (T m) differently. Clearly, parties’ satis-
faction and compliance with the mediation agreement (T 1and T 2)a r e
highly affected by whether the mediator’s tactics and the mediationprocess are in accordance with their cultural norms and values. Finally, theselection of who can become a mediator and his or her level of (in)formalpower (Kim et al. 1993) is highly dependent on context and culture.
To organize our review of the selected literature on workplace media-
tion, we have used the Herrman model described earlier (Herrman, Hollett,and Gale 2006; see also Polkinghorn and McDermott 2006). Hence, wehope to gain insight into what is empirically known about workplacemediation and which areas warrant further investigation. The results aredisplayed in Table Four later. In this table, boldface font combined with anasterisk indicates Herrman’s general categories, while subcategories areitalicized. Taking the study of Jonathan Anderson and Lisa Bingham (1997)as an example, we see that one category of T
mvariables is measured, namely
factors that prime readiness (specifically, recognition, feeling heard, and
empowerment ). In addition, two categories of mediation outcomes in the
short (T 1) and long term (T 2) are measured: disputant beliefs and attitudes
as well as the institutional context ( upstream effects on disputants and
workplace ).
Antecedents
The antecedents (T 0variables) are variations that occur before a mediation
begins. The most investigated mediation antecedents are mediator charac-
teristics such as mediation skills, tactics, and styles (Kim et al. 1993; Callister
and Wall 1997; McDermott et al. 2000, 2001; Mareschal 2005; Jameson,Bodtker, and Linker 2010; McDermott 2012).
But until now, there have been no conclusive studies on the relative
effectiveness of specific mediation strategies. This reflects the general stateof research on mediation styles and tactics in the more extensive generalliterature on mediation; although we know something about the nature of
mediator styles and tactics , knowledge about their relative effectiveness
and appropriateness under particular circumstances is scant (Brett,
Drieghe, and Shapiro 1986; McDermott and Obar 2004; Wall and Kressel2012).
Most researchers believe that the effectiveness of certain mediation
tactics or styles is highly dependent on such factors as the characteristics ofthe dispute (e.g., conflict escalation, potential for violence, etc.), the dispu-tants’ attitudes and orientations (e.g., motivation to resolve the conflict),and the surrounding context. For example, if the disputants expect or needto maintain a relationship after the mediation, it would be reasonable forthe mediator to use techniques targeted toward maintaining an amicable
Negotiation Journal July 2013 339

Table Four
Empirical Research Articles on Workplace Mediation
Author
(Year)Country Sample and
MethodT0Antecedents T mMediation Process T 1Short-Term
OutcomesT2Long-Term
OutcomesResults
Anderson and
Bingham (1997)United States 42 structured
in-depth interviews:29 employees, 13supervisors*Factors that prime
readiness: Recognition,
feeling heard,empowerment*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes*Institutionalcontext:Upstream effects ondisputants andworkplace*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes*Institutionalcontext:Upstream effectson disputants andworkplaceREDRESS (USPS) has a transformative
(recognition and empowerment) effect.
Disputants learn new skills (e.g., how to
listen) and how to deal with laborconflicts.
Bingham and
Pitts (2002)United States 7651 exit surveys * Factors that prime
readiness*Mediation conditions:Procedural justice,perceptions of themediator*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes:Perceptions of themediation outcomeREDRESS (USPS): Mediation impacts the
workplace positively. Conflicts are solvedearlier.An outside neutral mediation programmay outperform an inside program.
Bollen, Euwema,
and Müller(2010)The
Netherlands49 exit surveys: 26
subordinates, 23supervisors*Dispute characteristics:
Hierarchical conflict*Factors that prime
readiness:Uncertainty about themediation*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes:Satisfaction withmediation outcomeand processUncertainty about the mediation impairs
satisfaction with the mediation.Especially subordinates’ satisfaction isnegatively affected by uncertainty.
Bollen, Ittner,
and Euwema(2012)The
Netherlands49 exit surveys: 26
subordinates, 23supervisors*Dispute characteristics:
Hierarchical conflict*Mediation conditions:
Procedural justice*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes*Conflict resolved:Mediation effectivenessPerceived procedural justice contributes to
perceived mediation effectivenessEspecially subordinates’ perceptions ofmediation effectiveness are determinedby perceived procedural justice
Callister and
Wall (1997)Japan 40 interviews with
workplace mediators:25 men and 15women*Personal characteristics
— mediator:
Mediation techniqueJapanese mediators rely especially on
nonassertive techniques such asgathering information, listening toopinions and relaying these betweendisputants.
Boldface font combined with an asterisk “*” indicates Herrman’s general categories, while subcategories are italicized.
340 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Table Four
Continued
Author
(Year)Country Sample and
MethodT0Antecedents T mMediation Process T 1Short-Term
OutcomesT2Long-Term
OutcomesResults
Kim et al.
(1993)South Korea Structured interviews:
95 workplacemediators*Personal characteristics
mediator and disputant*Dispute characteristics*Conflict resolved:
Agreement or notMediation techniques used: data gathering,
reconciliation, dependency, and analysis.The use of these techniques is related tomediators’ low formal power in South Korea.
Mareschal
(2005)United States 78 surveys: mediators’
perspectives onconflict resolution*Personal characteristics:
Mediator skills*Disputant beliefs andattitudesDisputants’ collaborativeorientation and mediatoracceptability*Dispute characteristic:Hostility*Institutional context:Management outlook*Mediation conditions:
Mediator perspectives onsuccessful conflictresolution*Conflict resolved:
Agreement or notMediator skill base and disputants’ collaborative
orientation increase the chances to reach anagreement, while relationship hostility isnegatively related. Management outlook andmediator acceptability relate indirectly toreaching an agreement. Mediator tactics wereunrelated to the likelihood of reachingagreement.
McDermott
et al. (2000)United States 3255 surveys:
participantperceptions*Personal characteristics:
Disputant (age, gender , raceetc.)*Dispute characteristics*Institutional context:Process information*Factors that prime
readiness :
Voice*Mediation conditions :
Perceptions of the mediatorProcedural and distributivejusticeNeutrality*Problem solving*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes*Conflict resolvedor not*Institutional context:EfficiencyHigh levels of satisfaction with the EEOC
mediation program.Especially high levels of satisfaction with theprocedural elements of the mediation.Parties are willing to participate in mediationagain
McDermott
et al. (2001)United States 2062 surveys:
mediator perceptions*Personal characteristics:
Mediator style, tactics and
background*Institutional context*Mediation conditions:
Procedural and distributivejustice*Problem solvingParties conduct*Barriers to resolution*Turning points*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes*Conflict resolved*Institutional context:Efficiency andeffectivenessEssential for successful mediation: disputants’
open attitude, good mediator skills(reframing, clarifying), the facilitation of opencommunication, the use of caucus, providingparties with a reality check and a mediatorwho is calm, empathetic, professional,optimistic and persistent.
Boldface font combined with an asterisk “*” indicates Herrman’s general categories, while subcategories are italicized.
Negotiation Journal July 2013 341

Table Four
Continued
Author
(Year)Country Sample and
MethodT0Antecedents T mMediation Process T 1Short-Term
OutcomesT2Long-Term
OutcomesResults
Poitras (2007) Canada 74 exit surveys:
47 men, 27 women*Problem solving:
Accepting one’s shareof responsibilityParties’ joint recognition of their
responsibility for the conflict leads tomore collaboration.When responsibility is acknowledgedunilaterally instead of jointly it decreasescooperation.
Poitras and
LeTareau (2009)Canada 207 exit surveys:
105 supervisors102 subordinates108 women99 men*Mediation condition:
Procedural justiceMediator usefulness*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes:Satisfaction withagreementConfidence inagreementReconciliationThis study assessed the quality of
mediation agreements.Three types of agreement are identified:disappointing (1), satisfactory (2), andvalue-added agreements (3).
Swaab and
Brett (2007)The
Netherlands1381 family and labor
mediation*The use of caucus *Conflict resolved:
Quality of settlementThe use of caucus prior to the mediation
contributes to the quality of settlement.Caucuses are not meant to encouragesettlement but to build trust.
Wood and Leon
(2005–2006)United
States36 cases of workplace
mediation in the citygovernment*Disputant beliefs
and attitudes:Satisfaction with themediation*Conflict resolved*Agreement*Institutional context:Efficiency*Recommendation ofmediation, reusemediationParticipants reported a high degree of
satisfaction with the process, 90 percentwould use mediation again andrecommends mediation to coworkers.Agency management personnel andmunicipal employees’ unions feel alsosatisfied. Mediation is cheaper thanlitigation.
Boldface font combined with an asterisk “*” indicates Herrman’s general categories, while subcategories are italicized.
342 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

relationship. If no such need exists, the mediator may prefer to focus on
obtaining a resolution to the specific relevant conflict and have lessconcern for the long-term relationship.
Disputant beliefs and attitudes include disputants’ willingness to par-
ticipate in the mediation, their motivation to solve the conflict, and their“social value orientation” (e.g., Are they competitive or cooperative? ).
When parties believe that they are being forced to mediate, they are oftenunwilling to fully participate in the process. In addition, their tendencies tocompete or cooperate can affect which communication modes are mosteffective (Swaab et al. 2012). It is known that disputants often hold acompetitive attitude and tend to interpret each other’s actions as efforts todominate and/or exploit. Recent research has shown that a competitiveattitude can have an especially detrimental effect on the (communication)process when parties communicate in a synchronous way (direct commu-nication without time lags) and/or vocal as well as visual cues are present(Swaab et al. 2012). Thus, in other words, when competitive disputantscommunicate face-to-face, they may be more likely to express themselves inhostile, aggressive, or ineffective ways, which can have detrimental effectson attempts to solve their problem.
Consequently,it may be wise to limit immediate interactions or feedback
when the conflict is highly escalated or when parties are highly competitive.This can be done with the use of a precaucus, which is a private meetingbetween mediator and disputants before the joint face-to-face mediation, orwith a caucus, a private meeting during the mediation (see, e.g., Hoffman2011). In this way, parties communicate asynchronously (not at the sametime), and any verbal or physical cues expressing aggression or hostility are(temporarily) eliminated. As soon as parties are able to communicate in areasonable way, the mediator may opt for face-to-face mediation.
Dispute characteristics include the conflict’s level of escalation or
hostility, as well as the type or nature of the conflict ( conflicts over terms
and conditions of employment, sexual harassment, etc .). Relevant articles
have examined workplace mediation in cases of bullying (Doherty andGuyler 2008; Fox and Stallworth 2009), discrimination (Stallworth,McPherson, and Rute 2001; McDermott and Ervin 2005), and sexual harass-ment at work (Bond 1997; Oser 2004–2005). Unfortunately, however,research on mediation effectiveness has tended to only discuss workplacemediation very generally and has not focused on the impact of the type ofdispute on the effectiveness of workplace mediation.
Other dispute characteristics include: the conflict’s level of legal com-
plexity and the interpersonal dynamics between disputants ( Will parties
interact after the mediation? What is the relation between the parties ?).
With respect to interpersonal dynamics, recent research on workplacemediation has begun to focus on the role of hierarchy in mediation (Bollen,Euwema, and Müller 2010). During mediation, the mediator attempts to
Negotiation Journal July 2013 343

level the playing field between disputants and encourages both parties to
participate equally. But is this possible when hierarchical labor conflicts aremediated? How can hierarchical conflicts be most effectively mediated?(Wiseman and Poitras 2002; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012). Given thatmediation has a temporal character and hierarchy has a vast impact on howpeople think, feel, and behave in conflict (Van de Vliert, Euwema, andHuismans 1995; Fitness 2000; Keltner, Gruenfeld, and Anderson 2003;Guinote 2007), it is likely that hierarchy affects disputants’ perceptions andattitudes toward mediation (T
0) as well as their perceptions and evaluations
of the mediation in the short term (T 1) and/or long term (T 2).
The institutional context is the least explored antecedent (Mareschal
2005). The institutional context refers to:
• program context ( Is the mediation voluntary, mandatory, or referred
to? And how does it relate to mediation effectiveness? ), which is usually
affected by the legal and/or cultural context;
• process access ( How easy is it to get access to mediation? Is it spon-
sored? );
• process efficiency ( How long does the process take compared to other
procedures? ); and
• process information ( Is the program clearly explained? ) (McDermott
et al. 2000).
Mediation Process
The dynamics of the mediation process (T mvariables) include the factors
that prime people to mediate effectively, mediation conditions, andproblem-solving and decision-making dynamics. Research on T
mvariables
has predominantly investigated the factors that prime readiness to mediate(Anderson and Bingham 1997; McDermott et al. 2000, 2002; Bollen,Euwema, and Müller 2010) and mediation conditions that generate trust(McDermott et al. 2000, 2001, 2002; Bingham and Pitts 2002; Poitras andLeTareau 2009; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012).
Disputants are primed to participate in mediation when they feel it
gives them a voice, recognition, and empowerment, and when they per-ceive mediator empathy. The USPS’s REDRESS service takes a transforma-tive mediation approach, with empowerment and mutual recognitionplaying a central role (Bush 2001; Goldman 2011; Bingham 2012). Theprogram’s effects can be observed in changes in both the behavior ofdisputants as well as in changes to the workplace culture; while disputantslearn new skills to deal with conflicts (e.g., how to listen, how to intervenein a constructive way, how to regulate nonverbal behavior), the workplaceculture has improved so that complaints are dealt with early and onlyoccasionally reach a formal stage (Anderson and Bingham 1997; Bush 2001;
344 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Bingham and Pitts 2002). Furthermore, research has shown that when
disputants receive recognition from the mediator, they perceive that themediation has been more effective than when they receive little or norecognition (T
1) (Bollen and Euwema, unpublished data).
The mediation process can provide procedural justice and interpersonal
justice.Findings from the REDRESS project suggest that a six-factor model oforganizational justice provides a good fit for the data when examining justiceat the workplace (Nabatchi, Bingham, and Good 2007).Independent from theobjective economic outcomes of the mediation process itself, researchersknow that people are more satisfied with the outcome (T
1or T 2) when they
believe the process has been fair (Lind and Tyler 1988).
The following conditions are particularly important for creating the
perception of procedural justice: parties must have an opportunity toparticipate in the process, have control over the process, and must believethat the process is impartial and that they are treated with respect. Conse-quently, one of the mediator’s core tasks is to nurture procedural justice.Workplace mediation research has shown that mediation satisfaction (T
1)i s
enhanced when parties perceive that procedures have been fair and isdiminished when parties feel uncertain about the mediation process(Bollen, Euwema, and Müller 2010; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012).
Another way to establish rapport is through the use of a caucus prior
to mediation (Swaab and Brett 2007) or to apply “shuttle diplomacy, ” forexample, caucusing frequently with the parties separately (Hoffman 2011).Although some authors contend that the use of caucus gives the mediatortoo much power, these private meetings can be used to provide partieswith a chance to tell their side of the story and to share their emotions. Theinsights gained from a caucus can be pivotal in achieving conflict transfor-mation (Jameson, Bodtker, and Linker 2010). In addition, stimulating partiesto acknowledge joint responsibility for the conflict can also stimulatecooperation (Poitras 2007).
Research on decision making and problem solving in the context of
labor mediation (Poitras 2007) has been scarce, possibly because workplacemediation research has tended to focus on mediation designed to fosterparties’ mutual understanding and recognition (factors that prime readi-ness) rather than on workplace mediations that are especially designed toachieve settlement.
In contrast to more relationship-oriented mediation, settlement-
oriented mediation may have a greater focus on issue identification, forexample. In settlement-oriented mediation, mediators may take more initia-tive and be more directed in their approach (Goldman 2011).
Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes
As Table Four shows, nearly all research exploring the outcomes ofworkplace mediation has looked at short-term outcomes following the
Negotiation Journal July 2013 345

mediation (T 1), with few examinations of long-term outcomes obtained six
or more months after the mediation (T 2). This reflects the lack of longitu-
dinal research on this topic.
To investigate mediation effectiveness, many studies have focused on
the success ratio of signed mediation agreements (Lipsky, Seeber, andFincher 2003). More recently, however, most researchers argue that a reli-ance on such objective indicators can be far too limited: an agreement doesnot always mean that all conflict issues have been resolved, and oftendisputants seek relief that is more than solely monetary (Bond 1997).
Hence, many scholars also advocate the combined use of subjective
indicators reflecting the quality of the agreement (disputant beliefs andattitudes) as well as objective indicators (whether the conflict has beenresolved or an agreement has been reached) (Herrman 2006; Poitras andLeTareau 2009).
Short-term outcomes fall into three categories:
• disputant beliefs and attitudes (e.g., satisfaction with several aspects of
the mediation, compliance, well-being ) (Anderson and Bingham 1997;
McDermott et al. 2000, 2001, 2002; Bingham and Pitts 2002; Woodand Leon 2005–2006; Poitras and LeTareau 2009; Bollen, Euwema, andMüller 2010; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012),
• whether the conflict has been resolved (e.g., agreement, issues
resolved, distributive justice, relationship changed ) (Kim et al. 1993;
McDermott et al. 2000, 2001, 2002; Mareschal 2005; Wood and Leon2005–2006; Poitras and LeTareau 2009), and
• the institutional context (e.g., institutional efficiency and effectiveness,
comparable cost ) (Anderson and Bingham 1997).
With respect to disputant beliefs and attitudes, research has shown
that disputants typically feel satisfied with the procedural elements (proce-dural fairness) of the mediation process (McDermott et al. 2000, 2002;Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012). Furthermore, a disputant’s place in theworkplace hierarchy seems to affect his or her perceptions of the media-tion’s effectiveness as well as his or her satisfaction with the mediation(Bollen, Euwema, and Müller 2010; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012).Compared to subordinates, supervisors express greater satisfaction with themediation. In addition, subordinates’ satisfaction seems to be negativelyaffected by high levels of uncertainty about the mediation and low levels ofperceived justice. This is not the case for supervisors (Bollen, Euwema, andMüller 2010; Bollen, Ittner, and Euwema 2012). Obviously, subordinateshave less power in the workplace and consequently suffer more from thedetrimental effects of hierarchical conflict and are more likely than super-visors to perceive the conflict as unresolved (Fitness 2000; De Raeve et al.2009). Consequently, we would expect subordinates and supervisors to
346 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

hold different expectations toward the mediation process as well as differ-
ent attitudes about the resolution of the conflict, which affect their percep-tions of the mediation.
In research on the effectiveness of workplace mediation ,compliance
orientation (disputants’ intention to comply with the mediation agreementreached) and improved functioning or well-being have rarely been used tomeasure the success of short-term outcomes for disputants (T
1). We suggest
that two measures or questions that could help measure the effectivenessof workplace mediation would be: Would you recommend the use ofmediation to others? Would you consider using mediation in the future?(Wood and Leon 2005–2006).
Data show that workplace mediation produces good settlement rates
(Kim et al. 1993; McDermott et al. 2000, 2001; Wood and Leon 2005–2006;Swaab and Brett 2007). The likelihood of reaching an agreement improveswhen the mediator has a strong skill base and when disputants have a’
collaborative orientation . In contrast, relationship hostility correlates nega-
tively to reaching an agreement (Mareschal 2005). Patrice Mareschal (2005)has shown that, surprisingly, management outlook and mediator accept-
ability relate indirectly to reaching an agreement, whereas mediator tactics
are unrelated to the likelihood of reaching an agreement. The latter con-clusion contradicts more general mediation literature indicating that certainmediation tactics are crucial in successful mediation (Goldberg and Shaw2007). It also suggests that studies based on survey and recall (Mareschal(2005) need to be approached with some caution. Finally, we note that themediator’s presence — more a function of who the mediator is than whathe or she does — can have a profound impact on the mediation process(Bowling and Hoffman 2000).
Mediation studies often end at the institutional context stage (institu-
tional effectiveness and efficiency), and results are often used by the agencythat employs mediators and/or by the company that makes use of media-tion to get an idea of mediation efficiency and effectiveness (McDermottet al. 2000, 2001; Wood and Leon 2005–2006).
Finally, given that long-term outcomes are essentially different from
short-term mediation outcomes (Pruitt et al. 1993; Emery, Sbarra, andGrover 2005), it is important for future research to include longitudinalstudies of workplace mediation.
Discussion
The primary goal of this article is to review the literature on workplacemediation in a systematic and logical way. To this end, we used the model ofMargaret Herrman and her colleagues (2006),while paying extra attention tothe role of culture or the context in which the mediation takes place.
Our results show that workplace mediation research has been
published in a wide variety of outlets in which numerous authors offer
Negotiation Journal July 2013 347

intriguing ways of thinking about the process. However, only thirteen
empirical papers have been published on workplace mediation in the lasttwenty years and often they are very general and policy-oriented (focusing,e.g., on the REDRESS project, the EEOC, etc.) (Anderson and Bingham 1997;McDermott et al. 2000, 2001; Bingham and Pitts 2002; Wood and Leon2005–2006; Nabatchi, Bingham, and Moon 2010). During the last decade,the number of empirical studies on workplace mediation has been increas-ing, which we consider to be a positive sign.
Methodological and measurement difficulties may explain some of this
research vacuum. To conduct research on conflict and mediation, research-ers must find people willing to discuss what are often painful, personal, andsensitive feelings and experiences. Second, even if they gain access todisputants willing to participate in the research, it is usually difficult to findadequate comparison groups. Third, because scholars are under pressure topublish, it can be professionally risky to investigate real mediations, whichcan be relatively time-consuming and expensive, when one may be able toget published more quickly by examining a less labor-intensive andspeedier research topic (Bingham 2012; McDermott 2012).
Until now, most research on workplace mediation has been based on
postmediation survey data provided by disputants. Future research shouldcomplement these quantitative survey data with qualitative interview dataand also seek to collect data before, during, and after the mediationprocess. And because all parties involved in mediation may experienceinterventions in different ways, it is important to gather data from all theparties involved in the mediation as they hold different and (multiple)perspectives. This can be especially important when parties have differ-ential power relationships.
Our observations correspond with those of researchers who have
looked at mediation more generally. As mediation researchers have argued,one effective approach to study mediations would be a mixed method thatinvolves researchers observing the mediation combined with self-reporteddata (surveys and interviews) that address both mediators’ and disputants’pre- and postmediation impressions (data triangulation) (McDermott 2012).In practice, observation is rarely used because the disputants often perceiveit to be intrusive and threatening.
In addition, an obvious advance in workplace mediation research
would involve longitudinal mediation research to examine the long-termimpacts of the process. Research that looks more closely at the impact onthe process of different types of conflict would also be beneficial.
Finally, mediation service providers are increasingly relying on online
tools to manage workplace conflicts, from fully electronically supportedmediations to hybrid mediations that are partly computerized and partlyface-to-face. The differences in outcome between online and face-to-faceworkplace mediation would be a fruitful area for future research.
348 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Practical Recommendations
Thanks to initiatives taken by governments and companies to foster
mediation, the use of workplace mediation has flourished. Nonetheless,the number of studies on workplace mediation has been limited — in thelast two decades there have been only thirteen empirical studies. Findingsfrom research on workplace mediation could be useful to guide media-tors in their practice. By investigating which mediation conditions con-tribute to mediation effectiveness, research may show which mediationtactics work best given certain disputants, types of disputes, and contexts.Providing mediators with this knowledge would, we believe, improve thequality of mediation. Managers also could benefit from this knowledge, asproblem-solving behavior on the management side can buffer the nega-tive impact of conflict on disputants’ well-being and performance (Römeret al. 2012).
To successfully undertake some of these new avenues of workplace
mediation, we suggest that researchers consider collaborating with media-tors and/or mediation providers in the field. Furthermore, it must be clearto all parties involved (including managers and mediators) that the aim ofthe research is to improve the quality of the mediation process with thegoal of contributing to the well-being of all parties involved.
Conclusion
Although the use of workplace mediation has grown, this review revealsthat the research on workplace mediation has been scarce. The findingsfrom structured research programs in which researchers investigate actualmediations and explore what works under which conditions hold greatpromise for helping improve the process. The barriers to conducting thisresearch are not insurmountable. We suggest that the model of mediationcharacteristics that we have used here, originally formulated by Herrman,Hollett, and Gale (2006), is a useful tool that researchers could use tobreak down the mediation process into separate components in order toinvestigate how workplace mediation works and how it could workbetter.
REFERENCES
Anderson, G. 2001. Labour’s labour law: Labour law reform in New Zealand under a Labour
government . London: Institute of Employment Rights.
Anderson, J. F ., and L. B. Bingham. 1997. Upstream effects from mediation of workplace disputes:
Some preliminary evidence from the USPS. Labor Law Journal 48: 601–615.
Bingham, L. B. 2004. Employment dispute resolution: The case for mediation. Conflict Resolution
Quarterly 22(1): 145–174.
— — —. 2012. Transformative mediation at the United States Postal Service. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research 5(4): 354–366.
Bingham, L. B., and D. R. Chachere. 2000. Dispute resolution in employment: The need for research.
InEmployment dispute resolution and worker rights in the changing workplace , edited by
A. E. Eaton and J. H. Keefe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Negotiation Journal July 2013 349

Bingham, L. B., G. Chesmore, Y . Moon, and L. M. Napoli. 2000. Mediating employment disputes at the
United States Postal Service: A comparison of in-house and outside neutral mediators. Review
of Public Personnel Administration 20(1): 5–19.
Bingham, L. B., and M. C. Novac. 2001. Mediation’s impact on formal discrimination complaint filing:
Before and after the REDRESS program at the U.S. Postal Service. Review of Public Personnel
Administration 21(4): 308–331.
Bingham, L. B., and D. W . Pitts. 2002. Highlights of mediation at work: Studies of the national
REDRESS® evaluation project. Negotiation Journal 17(2): 135–146.
Bollen, K., M. C. Euwema, and P . Müller. 2010. Why are subordinates less satisfied with mediation?
The role of uncertainty. Negotiation Journal 26(4): 417–433.
Bollen, K., H. Ittner, and M. C. Euwema. 2012. Mediating hierarchical labor conflicts: Procedural
justice makes a difference — for subordinates. Group Decision and Negotiation 21(5):
621–636.
Bond, C. A. 1997. Shattering the myth: Mediating sexual harassment disputes in the workplace.
Fordham Law Review 65(6): 2489–2533.
Bowling, D., and D. Hoffman. 2000. Bringing peace into the room: The personal qualities of the
mediator and their impact on the mediation. Negotiation Journal 16(1): 5–28.
Brett, J. M., R. Drieghe, and D. L. Shapiro. 1986. Mediator style and mediation effectiveness.
Negotiation Journal 2(3): 277–285.
Brim, R. 2001. Talks replacing torts in workplace conflict; more businesses relying on mediation .
Lexington, KY: Herald-Leader.
Bush, R. A. B. 2001. Handling workplace conflict: Why transformative mediation? Hofstra Labor and
Employment Law Journal 18(2): 367–373.
Callister, R. R., and J. A. Wall, Jr. 1997. Japanese community and organizational mediation. The
Journal of Conflict Resolution 41(2): 311–328.
Cutcher-Gershenfeld, J., T. Kochan, J.-P . Ferguson, and B. Barrett. 2007. Collective bargaining in the
twenty-first century: A negotiations institution at risk. Negotiation Journal 23(3): 249–
265.
De Dreu, C. K. W . 2008. The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 29(1): 5–18.
De Raeve, L., N. W . H. Jansen, P . A. van den Brandt, R. Vasse, and I. J. Kant. 2009. Interpersonal
conflicts at work as a predictor of self-reported health outcomes and occupational mobility.Occupational and Environmental Medicine 66(1): 16–22.
Dijkstra, M. T. M. 2006. Workplace conflict and individual well-being . Amsterdam: Kurt Lewin
Institute.
Doherty, N., and M. Guyler. 2008. The essential guide to workplace mediation and conflict
resolution: Rebuilding working relationships . London: Kogan Page Publishers.
Dolder, C. 2004. The contribution of mediation to workplace justice. Industrial Law Journal 33(4):
320–342.
Emery, R. E., D. Sbarra, and T. Grover. 2005. Divorce mediation: Research and reflections. Family
Court Review 43(1): 22–37.
European Commission. 2002. Green paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and com-
mercial law . COM (2002) 196 final. Brussels: European Commission.
— — —. 2004. Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on
certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters . COM(2004) 718 final.
Brussels: European Commission.
Euwema, M. C., K. Bollen, and S. Prins. 2008. Mediation in België en Nederland: Een wereld van
verschil? In Mediation is volwassen! Actuele toepassingen en ontwikkelingen , edited by G.
Frerks, T. Jongbloed, S. Kalff, L. Potters, F . Schonewille, and M. Uitslag. Antwerp, Belgium:Maklu.
Fitness, J. 2000. Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes between
workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior21(2): 147–162.
Fox, S., and L. E. Stallworth. 2009. Building a framework for two internal organizational approaches
to resolving and preventing workplace bullying: Alternative dispute resolution and training.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 61(3): 220–241.
Giebels, E., and O. Janssen. 2005. Conflict stress and reduced wellbeing at work: The buffering effect
of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 14(2):
137–155.
350 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Giebels, E., and H. Yang. 2009. Preferences for third-party help in workplace conflict: A cross-
cultural comparison of Chinese and Dutch employees. Negotiation and Conflict Manage-
ment Research 2(4): 344–362.
Goldberg, S. B., and M. L. Shaw. 2007. The secrets of successful (and unsuccessful) mediators
continued: Studies two and three. Negotiation Journal 23(4): 393–418.
Goldman, B. M., R. Cropanzano, J. H. Stein, D. L. Shapiro, S. Thatcher, and J. Ko. 2008. The role of
ideology in mediated disputes at work: A justice perspective. International Journal of
Conflict Management 19(3): 210–233.
Goldman, W . 2011. Dispute system design and justice in employment dispute resolution: Mediation
at the workplace. Harvard Negotiation Law review 14: 1–34.
Gourlay, A., and J. Soderquist. 1997–1998. Mediation in employment cases is too little too late: An
organizational conflict management perspective on resolving conflicts. Hamline Law Review
21: 261–286.
Guinote, A. 2007. Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(5): 685–697.
Herrman, M. S. 2006. Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice .
Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Herrman, M. S., N. Hollett, and J. Gale. 2006. Mediation from beginning to end: A testable model. In
The Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice , edited by
M. S. Herrman. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hoffman, D. A. 2011. Mediation and the art of shuttle diplomacy. Negotiation Journal 27(3):
263–309.
Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and orga-
nizations across nations , 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, R. J., P . J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P . W . Dorfman, and V . Gupta. 2004. Culture, leadership, and
organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jameson, J. K., A. M. Bodtker, and T. Linker. 2010. Facilitating conflict transformation through
attention to emotion: Mediator strategies for eliciting emotional appraisal and reappraisal ina workplace conflict. Negotiation Journal 26(1): 25–48.
Keltner, D., D. H. Gruenfeld, and C. Anderson. 2003. Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological
review 110(2): 265–284.
Kim, N. H., J. A. Wall, Jr., D. Sohn, and J. S. Kim. 1993. Community and industrial mediation in South
Korea. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 37(2): 361–381.
Kressel, K. 2006. Mediation revisited. The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice ,
2nd edn., edited by M. Deutsch, P . T. Coleman, and E. C. Marcus. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kressel, K., and D. G. Pruitt. 1989. Mediation research:The process and effectiveness of third party .
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice . New York: Plenum.
Lipsky, D. B., and R. L. Seeber. 1999. Patterns of ADR use in corporate disputes. Dispute Resolution
Journal 54(1): 66–71.
Lipsky, D. B., R. L. Seeber, and R. D. Fincher. 2003. Emerging systems for managing workplace
conflict: Lessons from American corporations for managers and dispute resolution profes-sionals . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mareschal, P . M. 2005. What makes mediation work? Mediators’ perspective on resolving dispute.
Industrial Relations 44(3): 509–517.
Martinez-Pecino, R., L. Munduate, F . J. Medina, and M. C. Euwema. 2008. Effectiveness of mediation
strategies in collective bargaining. Evidence from Spain. Industrial Relations 47(3): 480–495.
McDermott, E. P . 2012. Discovering the importance of mediator style — An interdisciplinary
challenge. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 5(4): 340–353.
McDermott, E. P ., and D. Ervin. 2005. The influence of procedural and distributive variables on
settlement rates in employment discrimination mediation. Journal of Dispute Resolution 1:
45–60.
McDermott, E. P ., A. Jose, R. Obar, B. Polkinghorn, and M. Bowers. 2002. Has the EEOC hit a home
run? An evaluation of the EEOC mediation program from the participants’ perspective. InAdvances in industrial and labor relations , Vol. 11, edited by D. Lewin and B. E. Kaufman.
Oxford: Elsevier.
McDermott, E. P ., and R. Obar. 2004. “What’s going on” in mediation: An empirical analysis of the
influence of a mediator’s style on party satisfaction and monetary benefit. Harvard Negotia-
tion Law Journal 9: 75–113.
Negotiation Journal July 2013 351

McDermott, E. P ., R. Obar, A. Jose, and M. Bowers. 2000. An evaluation of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission mediation program. A report to the US EEOC. Available fromhttp://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/index.cfm.
McDermott, E. P ., R. Obar, B. Polkinghorn, and A. Jose. 2001. The EEOC mediation program:
Mediators’ perspective on the parties, processes and outcomes. A report to the US EEOC.Available from http://www1.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/index.cfm.
Nabatchi, T., L. B. Bingham, and D. H. Good. 2007. Organizational justice and workplace mediation:
A six-factor model. The International Journal of Conflict Management 18(2): 148–
176.
Nabatchi, T., L. B. Bingham, and Y . Moon. 2010. Evaluating transformative mediation in the U.S. Postal
Service REDRESS program. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27(3): 257–289.
Oser, J. 2004–2005. The unguided use of internal ADR programs to resolve sexual harassment
controversies in the workplace. Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution 6: 283–312.
Pinkley, R. L., J. Brittain, M. A. Neale, and G. B. Northcraft. 1995. Managerial third-party dispute
intervention: An inductive analysis of intervenor strategy selection. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology 80(3): 386–402.
Poitras, J. 2007. The paradox of accepting one’s share of responsibility in mediation. Negotiation
Journal 23(3): 267–282.
Poitras, J., F . Belair, and S. Byrne. 2005. A reflection on unintended consequences of workplace
mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 23(1): 43–51.
Poitras, J., and A. LeTareau. 2009. Quantifying the quality of mediation agreements. Negotiation and
Conflict Management Research 2(4): 363–380.
Polkinghorn, B., and E. P . McDermott. 2006. Applying the comprehensive model to workplace
mediation research. In The Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research
and practice , edited by M. S. Herrman. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Pruitt, D. G., R. S. Peirce, N. B. McGillicuddy, G. L. Welton, and L. M. Castrianno. 1993. Long-term
success in mediation. Law and Human Behavior 17(3): 313–330.
Rome, D. L. 2003. A guide to business-to-business mediation. Dispute Resolution Journal 57(4):
51–59.
Römer, M., S. Rispens, E. Giebels, and M. Euwema. 2012. A helping hand? The moderating role of
leaders’ conflict management behavior on the conflict-stress relationship of employees.Negotiation Journal 28(3): 253–277.
Ross, W . H. 1995. Effects of interpersonal trust and time pressure on managerial mediation strategy
in a simulated organizational dispute. Journal of Applied Psychology 81(3): 228–248.
Shaw, W ., Q.-N. Hong, G. Pransky, and P . Loisel. 2008. A literature review describing the role of
return-to-work coordinators in trial programs and interventions designed to prevent work-place disability. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 18(1): 2–15.
Stallworth, L. E., T. McPherson, and L. Rute. 2001. Discrimination in the workplace: How mediation
can help. Dispute Resolution Journal 56: 35–44.
Swaab, R. I., and J. M. Brett. 2007. Caucus with care: The impact of pre-mediation caucuses on
conflict resolution. Paper presented at the IACM, Chicago. Available from SSRN http://ssrn.com/abstract =1080622.
Swaab, R. I., A. D. Galinsky, V . Medvec, and D. A. Diermeier. 2012. The communication orientation
model: Explaining the diverse effects of sight, sound, and synchronicity on negotiationand group decision-making outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Review 16(1):
25–53.
Swendiman, M. A. 2001. The EEOC mediation program: Panacea or panicked reaction? Ohio State
Journal on Dispute Resolution 16(2): 391–408.
Tang, H. 2009. Mediation is developing around the word. Asia Pacific Law Review 17: 31–37.
Tjosvold, D., and S. Fang. 2006. Manager as mediator: Developing a conflict-positive organization. In
The Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice , edited by
M. S. Herrman. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Van de Vliert, E., M. C. Euwema, and S. E. Huismans. 1995. Managing conflict with a subordinate or
a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 80(2):
271–281.
Wall, J., and T. C. Dunne. 2012. State of the art: Mediation research: A current review. Negotiation
Journal 28(2): 217–244.
Wall, J., and K. Kressel. 2012. Research on mediator style: A summary and some research sugges-
tions. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 5(4): 403–421.
352 Bollen and Euwema Workplace Mediation

Wall, J. A. 1981. Mediation: An analysis, review and proposed research. Journal of Conflict Resolu-
tion 25: 157–180.
Wall, J. A., J. B. Stark, and R. L. Standifer. 2001. Mediation: A current review and theory development.
The Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(3): 370–391.
Wall, J. A., Jr., and A. Lynn. 1993. Mediation: A current review. The Journal of Conflict Resolution
37(1): 160–194.
Weitzman, E. A., and P . F . Weitzman. 2000. Problem solving and decision making in conflict resolu-
tion. In The Handbook of conflict resolution:Theory and practice , edited by M. Deutsch and
P . T. Coleman. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wiseman, V ., and J. Poitras. 2002. Mediation within a hierarchical structure: How can it be done
successfully? Conflict Resolution Quarterly 20(1): 51–65.
Wood, D. H., and D. M. Leon. 2005–2006. Measuring value in mediation: A case study of workplace
mediation in city government. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution 21: 383–408.
Zimmerman, P . 2001. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mediation program. CP A
Journal 71(3): 66–67.
Negotiation Journal July 2013 353