A comparison of conﬂict coaching and mediation as conﬂict resolution processes in the workplace Judith Herrmann Mediation and conﬂict coaching are both dispute support services to assist people in dealing with conﬂict. Each process is characterised by factors determining whether mediation or conﬂict coaching may constitute the more appropriate mechanism to help people with their particular conﬂict. For example, the number of disputing parties, preferences regarding conﬁdentiality and formality, as well as the objectives and expectation of participants seeking assistance with a conﬂict support service may inﬂuence the selection of a process. This article compares conﬂict coaching and mediation as independent approaches to conﬂict resolution from the perspective of parties seeking assistance with the aim to identify the most suitable service in a given conﬂict situation. INTRODUCTION The ﬁeld of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provides a range of different approaches to help to resolve conﬂict. The suitability of each approach to a particular conﬂict is inﬂuenced by several factors, including the number and availability of disputants. Mediation, for example, requires the co-operation of at least two opposing parties, while conﬂict coaching is a one-on-one conﬂict resolution approach involving only one party (and the coach). Conﬂict coaching can be used in conjunction with or instead of other dispute resolution processes.1 Although the validity of combining both processes (for example, pre-mediation coaching) is acknowledged, mediation and conﬂict coaching are regarded as two independent conﬂict support services for the purpose of this article. Mediation and conﬂict coaching differ in a number of major ways, determining which of the two processes may constitute the more appropriate intervention strategy in a given conﬂict situation.2 This article focuses on discussing mediation and conﬂict coaching as dispute support services within the workplace, although the ﬁndings may be transferrable to a broader context. Parties seeking assistance are classiﬁed as people in dispute (clients) and the entity arranging for the dispute resolution service (sponsor).3 LIMITATIONS A number of mediation models have developed during recent years, which tend to differ in various characteristics, such as structure and role of the mediator.4 “Facilitative mediation” is often referred to as the “standard” model,5 which is why this article will assume this model when comparing characteristics of conﬂict coaching and mediation. There are various conﬂict coaching models in use, differing slightly in process and structure. They are not as clearly distinguishable from each other as the different mediation models; therefore, the following discussion on the criteria of conﬂict coaching will draw from a range of different models. 1 Noble C, “Conﬂict Coaching – When it Works and When it Doesn’t” (2006) Mediate.com, http://www.mediate.com/articles/ nobleC8.cfm viewed 15 April 2011. See also Noble C, Conﬂict Coaching: An Emerging Trend in the ADR World, Paper presented at the Asia Paciﬁc Mediation Forum Conference (Harun M Hashim Law Centre, International Islamic University, Malaysia, 2008) p 1. 2 Noble C, “Conﬂict Coaching: A Preventative Form of Dispute Resolution” (2002) Mediate.com, http://www.mediate.com/ articles/noble1.cfm?nl=314 viewed 1 May /2011. 3 International Coach Federation (ICF), ICF Code of Ethics (2008) p 1. 4 Alberstein M, “Forms of Mediation and Law: Cultures of Dispute Resolution” (2007) 22 Ohio St J on Disp Resol 321. 5 Boulle L, Mediation: Principles, Process, Practice (2nd ed, LexisNexis Butterworths, 2005) p 43. (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 43 COMPARISON Number and willingness of disputing parties The number and willingness of the disputing parties is one crucial criterion determining the suitability of the two discussed conﬂict support services. Many conﬂict-related situations are not appropriate for mediation. Often, it is not feasible to engage two or more parties in a resolution process.6 For example, only one party may be willing to mediate or the other party does not show up for mediation.7 One of the main differences between conﬂict coaching and mediation is that in conﬂict coaching a practitioner works with one individual only, while mediation requires the presence of at least two opposing parties. Tidwell has stated that “between 25 and 50 percent of cases that present for mediation fail to ‘get to the table’ because the other party refuses to participate”.8 Conﬂict coaching ﬁnds application if it is not possible to engage more than one party in a conﬂict resolution process. Furthermore, people seeking assistance may not be ready or not even want to engage in a mediation process, instead preferring to deal with the situation themselves. This is another example of a point at which conﬂict coaching might be useful. A one-on-one process has advantages and disadvantages. Because one party is missing, coach and coachee can only construct possible reactions and outcomes, bearing the risk of generating unrealistic options.9 That said, coach and coachee have a lot more freedom to practice various scenarios to beneﬁt the coachee in his or her conﬂicts and develop long-term, broader conﬂict management skills. During mediation all parties have the opportunity to express their needs; hence they can all be considered during the process. Ideally, most needs are dovetailed and reﬂected in the agreement the parties reach, allowing for workable solutions all parties can live with.10 On the contrary, strategies deﬁned during conﬂict coaching may not necessarily suit the person the coachee is in conﬂict with because that side cannot be directly tested during the process. Clients in conﬂict coaching can never truly know the other person’s intentions and opinions.11 Thus, there is no guarantee that the exercises and strategies developed in the conﬂict coaching room are applicable solutions. Tidwell has argued that conﬂict coaching is by no means aiming to fully resolve a conﬂict but instead intends to assist clients in developing strategies to reduce the negative consequences of conﬂict.12 Overall, this suggests that mediation would be the recommended process if at least two parties are willing to engage and have a strong interest in a resolution because it considers the needs of all parties involved. Conﬂict coaching will be more suitable if only one side is able or willing to engage in the process. Complexity of conﬂict Individuals may generally demonstrate problematic conﬂict conduct at the work place. For example, some people are not in dispute with only one party but may have a pattern of problematic communications with various individuals.13 A broad approach might be required in this situation, helping the individual to address and understand his or her patterns. 6 Brinkert R, “Conﬂict Coaching: Advancing the Conﬂict Resolution Field by Developing an Individualistic Disputant Process” (2006) 23(4) Conﬂict Resolution Quarterly 517 at 517. 7 See North B, “Conﬂic Coaching: When Mediation Isn’t A Possibility” (2009) Mediate.com, http://www.mediate.com/articles/ northB1.cfm viewed 2 April 2011. 8 Tidwell A, “A Preliminary Evaluation of Proble Solving for One” (2001) 18(3) Mediation Quarterly 249 at 249. 9 See North, n 7. 10 Brandon M and Robertson L, Conﬂict and Dispute Resolution – A Guide for Practice (Oxford University Press, 2007) p 87. 11 Segal L, “Teaching People to Fish in the Sea of Conﬂict: The Beneﬁts of Conﬂict Coaching” (2011) Mediate.com, http://www.mediate.com/articles/segalLbl20110110.cfm viewed 15 April 2011. 12 Tidwell, n 8 at 254. 13 Segal, n 11. Herrmann 44 (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 Objectives of client and sponsor According to Brandon and Robertson, the main purpose of those participating in conﬂict coaching is to get a better understanding of constructive communication, decision-making, problem-solving, and conﬂict resolution.14 Noble underlined that the objectives of those taking part in conﬂict coaching may focus on improvement of general communication and conﬂict management skills, rather than strategies on how to resolve a particular dispute.15 People may choose conﬂict coaching to understand how to prevent dispute escalation, and learn how to effectively engage and communicate in conﬂict and difficult conversations.16 Furthermore, conﬂict coaching may be used to help parties in preparing for mediation or a rights-based process.17 Therefore, conﬂict coaching concentrates on conﬂict management rather than resolution, and has application with or without any informal or integrated conﬂict management system. “Conﬂict management” includes conﬂict resolution, but goes beyond it because it also involves important initiatives such as prevention and containment.18 Originating in executive coaching, conﬂict coaching is also used as a means of training and professional development.19 Coping with human conﬂict forms the foundation of any managerial work and is relevant for building leadership competency.20 This is supported by Jones and Brinkert who argue that the ability to handle conﬂict is essential for the organisation’s competitiveness because conﬂict-related communication skills are central to supervising others, co-ordinating with peers, and inﬂuencing upwards in the organisational hierarchy.21 Conﬂict coaching may also be used as a training tool to prepare individuals to coach other people in conﬂict.22 For example, in an organisational setting, being an effective coach may be particularly important for staff dealing with workplace disputes, such as managers, supervisors and people working in human resources. In contrast, facilitative mediation is primarily a structured form of conﬂict resolution.23 Mediation within a workplace setting offers a process by which employees can settle their own disputes and reach resolution and agreements for the future, assisted by a third party. Participants are encouraged to discuss and explore the issues they are having whilst explaining and deﬁning their underlying needs and interests.24 According to Moore, facilitative mediation creates an optimal environment for negotiations, enabling the development of a mutually acceptable agreement. Moore further explains how “mediation is usually initiated when parties can no longer handle the conﬂict on their own and when the only means of resolution appears to involve impartial third-party assistance”.25 For this reason, if the focus is on ﬁnding agreement to an already existing conﬂict, then mediation will be the recommended process. If, however, client and sponsor have a great interest in conﬂict prevention and want to develop the client’s general conﬂict management and communication skills, then conﬂict coaching is the more appropriate course of action. 14 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 62. 15 Noble (2006), n 1. 16 Jones TS and Brinkert R, Conﬂict Coaching (Sage Publications, Inc, 2008) pp 3-4. 17 Noble (2008), n 1, pp 7-8. 18 Flynch JF, “Beyond ADR: A Systems Approach to Conﬂict Management” (2001) 17(3) Negotiation Journal 207 at 208. 19 Brinkert, n 6 at 518, 525. 20 Flynch JF, “Integrated Conﬂict Management Programs Emerge as an Organization Development Strategy” (2003) 21(5) Alternatives 99 at 113. 21 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, p 11. 22 Noble, n 2; Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 62. 23 Gadlin H, “The Ombudsman: What’s in a Name?” (2000) 16(1) Negotiation Journal 37 at 42. 24 Alexander N, “The Mediation Metamodel: Understanding Practice” (2008) 26(1) Conﬂict Resolution Quarterly 97 at 111; see also Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 86. 25 Moore CW, The Mediation Process (3rd ed, Jossey-Bass, 2003) p 15. A comparison of conﬂict coaching and mediation as conﬂict resolution processes in the workplace (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 45 Additional skills development Apart from their main purposes deﬁned above, both mediation and conﬂict coaching may have additional positive effects on individuals and their work settings. Conﬂict coaching can help individuals to develop long-term problem-solving techniques for future disputes. The process can empower clients to take responsibility for their lives and equip them with additional skills to understand their own interests and those of others, assisting them to manage their own conﬂict situations in constructive and conciliatory ways.26 Similarly, the process of mediation may have beneﬁts that reach beyond the mediation room. Besides addressing substantive issues, mediation may support the participants to establish and strengthen relationships of trust and respect.27 The process assists people in raising concerns regarding trust, accuracy of information and fairness of decisions.28 It provides a platform for the parties to directly and actively practise how to raise these concerns in front of another party. The goodwill it can foster between the parties may also have a positive impact on their relationship with others. Parties may gain a better understanding of interest-based negotiations and gain faith that mutually acceptable solutions to conﬂicts are achievable. Conﬂict coaching focuses on similar conﬂict management skills but only allows for the theoretical discussion of the reaction of the coachee’s counterpart, since the opposition is not present in the process. There are opportunities for practical exercises to enhance the learning process, where the conﬂict coach can act as a role player, simulating the conﬂict situation.29 Unfortunately, due to the counterpart’s absence, the coach can only rely on information provided by the coachee when playing the role. Thus the actions are based on assumption and may not be accurate, especially if the coachee provides limited information about the other party. In mediation, parties depend on each other’s reactions. If one or both offer limited perspectives, this might constrain the range of possible options, as well as the overall learning process. On the other hand, experienced conﬂict coaches may be able to encourage various avenues to a conﬂict, broadening the client’s understanding of conﬂict and fostering general conﬂict management skills. Working with a conﬂict coach will support people’s learning processes and will allow them to practice using tools not only for conﬂict management and communication but also for self-reﬂection.30 Certain techniques used during conﬂict coaching encourage coachees to “step aside from their familiar story” and be more objective.31 This is supported by Tidwell who claims that a one-on-one process can assist the client in recognising that there is always another story in a conﬂict situation to be considered.32 Conﬂict coaching may increase the client’s perspective-taking which may beneﬁt the coachee not only in future conﬂict situations but also in other areas of life.33 Mediation also has the potential to enhance the parties’ objectivity because parties in mediation will gain a greater understanding about the various sides to a story when learning the opponent’s narrative. However, while people in mediation may generally understand that there are multiple versions of a story, individuals in conﬂict coaching might go one step further by actively practising altering their perspectives and building empathy towards others in conﬂict.34 26 North, n 7; Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 62. 27 Moore, n 25, p 15. 28 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 87. 29 North, n 7. 30 Segal, n 11. 31 Brinkert, n 7 at 522. 32 Tidwell, n 8 at 255. 33 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, p 62. 34 Tidwell, n 8 at 255. Herrmann 46 (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 Segal cautions that repetition is important in order to change habitual patterns of thoughts and attitudes.35 Thus it may take a series of sessions for clients to remember and apply what they have learned in their conﬂict support service. Mediation is usually a one-time process while conﬂict coaching is commonly conducted over a number of sessions. It can thus be assumed that conﬂict coaching will be more effective in changing habits and attitudes of a client than mediation.36 Role of practitioner and parties Mediators focus on facilitating the negotiations between the parties and assisting all parties equally in identifying their interests. They do not act on behalf of one party or take sides, but are usually described as neutral or independent. The issues discussed during the mediation process are deﬁned by all attending parties. During facilitative mediation, substantive goals often need to be negotiated and parties may need to make concessions to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.37 Conﬂict coaching is an individualised process speciﬁc to the client. According to Noble, conﬂict coaches provide a high level of support, assistance and encouragement to help people to manage their conﬂict.38 Starr highlights that the coach’s attention and commitment to the client’s situation is exceptional and is rarely experienced elsewhere because conﬂict coaches attend solely to the client and the client’s agenda.39 Coachees have the opportunity to deﬁne their own personal goals and work towards them.40 It is up to the client’s discretion to which extent he or she wants to integrate the goals of others, although coaches will usually encourage clients to consider the conﬂict from the point of view of others.41 Not all individuals in conﬂict may be ready to engage alone and actively in a dispute resolution process, and may feel the need to be attended by a support person. Mediation allows for additional support since parties may be accompanied by a legal representative or other form of support person, who sometimes speak on the party’s behalf.42 Conﬂict coaching is deﬁned as a process involving one coach and one coachee and depends thus on the client’s active engagement.43 Conﬂict coaching does not require a direct confrontation between the coachee and his or her opponent and may thus constitute a valuable support service for those who do not feel ready to engage in a joint process. The selection of the conﬂict support service will depend on the needs of the client and the client’s expectations of the role and level of attention provided by the practitioner. Time According to Brandon and Robertson, a mediation process usually takes between two to ﬁve hours.44 A typical conﬂict coaching session, as suggested by Noble, lasts from 45 to 75 minutes.45 Conﬂict coaching is usually held on an ongoing basis over a speciﬁc period of time – either short, medium or long term.46 Hence, mediation is in most cases a one-time process, while conﬂict coaching tends to be conducted in a number of sessions. 35 Segal, n 11. 36 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, pp 62-63. 37 Charlton R and Dewdney M, The Mediator’s Handbook (2nd ed, Lawbook Co., 2004) pp 45-47, 107-109; see also Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 87. 38 Noble (2006), n 1. 39 Starr J, The Coaching Manual (3rd ed, Pearson Education, 2010) pp 4, 8; see also ICF, Professional Coaching Core Competencies (1999) p 3. 40 Starr, n 39, p 159. 41 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, pp 58-59. 42 See Charlton and Dewdney, n 37, pp 286-289, 328-329. This is only recommended if both parties are supported by another person in order to not negatively affect power dynamics (p 312). 43 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, pp 4-5. 44 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 86. 45 Noble, n 2. 46 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 63. A comparison of conﬂict coaching and mediation as conﬂict resolution processes in the workplace (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 47 If sponsor and client feel the need to ﬁnd some immediate solutions to a conﬂict, mediation will be more suitable than conﬂict coaching. If time does not play a dominant role and the focus is on other criteria, then conﬂict coaching may be the better approach. Formality Mediation at the workplace is often informal, but can also be conducted in a more formal way including legal or union representatives. If the facilitative model is used, the process is usually preceded by an agreement to mediate, signed by all relevant parties and establishing the terms of the process.47 Facilitative mediation may also result in a written agreement signed by each party at the end of the process. According to Charlton and Dewdney, the majority of agreements reached at mediation are legally enforceable.48 It must be considered though that workplace mediation agreements are not “legally enforceable” in terms of “a court would be prepared to enforce the terms of the agreement”.49 However, if a mediation agreement is breached it may be used as a point of reference by management for further disciplinary actions. Conﬂict coaching is usually preceded by joint signatures of coach and coachee on an agreement outlining the terms of the coaching sessions.50 The coaching process does not usually result in a written agreement or any other formal document relating to enforcing anything.51 Coach and coachee will most likely focus on determining an action plan to assist the client with the given dispute – provided that this is the purpose of the conﬂict coaching relationship. However, the plan is usually not recorded in writing, and not made available externally. Management sponsors might have a strong interest in obtaining a written outcome of dispute resolutions between staff members which they may then refer to at a later stage if disciplinary actions became necessary.52 They may also have an interest in evaluating the “success” of a dispute resolution process, which they may ﬁnd easier after mediation than conﬂict coaching because mediation typically produces more measurable outcomes than conﬂict coaching. The clients may also prefer formal, written documentation of the outcome of a dispute resolution process. In this case mediation may constitute a more suitable approach. Both facilitative mediation and conﬂict coaching tend to follow a certain model, which may be more or less rigid depending on the style of the practitioner. Usually, facilitative mediation is well structured with a clear sequence of stages including a written agenda listing the issues in dispute. It is generally assumed that parties taking part in a facilitative mediation “appreciate a sense of order and predictability in the session, knowing what will happen next and why”.53 Conﬂict coaching also follows a certain system, which may be more or less rigid depending on the model. For example, the CINERGY model is said to follow a deﬁned order with preset questions to be asked by the conﬂict coach.54 The PS1 model as presented by Tidwell consists of three components and is said to provide structure and focus to the session, although it seems to be more ﬂexible within its components than the CINERGY model.55 At the beginning of the ﬁrst conﬂict coaching session, the coach usually brieﬂy informs clients about the nature and purpose of conﬂict 47 Charlton and Dewdney, n 37, pp 338-343. 48 Charlton and Dewdney, n 37, p 126. 49 McSwan R, Workplace Mediation (2011), personal communication with Herrmann J. 50 Hardy S, Conﬂict Coaching (2011), personal communication with Herrmann J. 51 Noble (2008), n 1, p 7. 52 McSwan, n 49. 53 Charlton and Dewdney, n 37, p 9; see generally pp 3-10. 54 Hardy, n 50. 55 Tidwell, n 8 at 250-256. Herrmann 48 (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 coaching.56 Coaches are unlikely to discuss the different stages of the coaching model with the client in order to maintain the client’s self-determination.57 Thus, if clients prefer a more structured process during which they will know exactly what is happening and in which order, then facilitative mediation might be a recommended process.58 It needs to be considered that clients’ anxiety towards a clear and structured process might derive from the fact that they are in the same room as their opponent. Since conﬂict coaching does not directly involve the other party to a conﬂict, coachees may not feel the same urge for structure and predictability as they do in mediation. If clients want to maintain a higher level of ﬂexibility and self-determination, then conﬂict coaching appears to be the better approach.59 Conﬁdentiality The NADRAC Practice Standards require mediators to not voluntarily disclose to anyone who is not a party of the mediation any identifying information obtained during the mediation unless required by law or with consent of the participants.60 The terms of conﬁdentiality of the mediation and any limitations to it must be clariﬁed prior to mediation and be recorded in writing by all participants. Within the context of workplace mediation it is possible to include a clause in the consent form allowing the mediator to “verbally brief the referring body after the facilitation as to whether the issues involved in the proceeding have been resolved” and to notify “Principal and HR and appropriate senior personnel … of the outcome … PROVIDED THAT this is only done on a ‘need to know’ basis”.61 The International Coach Federation (ICF) Code of Ethics requires conﬂict coaches to “maintain the strictest levels of conﬁdentiality with all clients and sponsor information”.62 A conﬂict coach does not report to management about the participant’s progress in any way.63 Content discussed with the coachee is not revealed to anybody unless required by law or determined otherwise in the coaching agreement or contract. If conﬂict coaching is undertaken within the workplace setting, it is up to the coachees’ discretion to provide information about the coaching sessions to their employer. If the sponsor wants to be informed about the outcome of a conﬂict support process, then mediation will be more suitable. If clients prefer to deal with a conﬂict in the most conﬁdential way possible and do not want anybody to be informed about their development within the process then conﬂict coaching will be a better option. Power imbalances Participants taking part in a dispute resolution process do not always have an equal capacity to impose their will. Opinions of practitioners differ as to how power imbalances should be dealt with in the mediation room.64 A mediator may be required to pay more attention to the less powerful party, which may be regarded as favouritism by the other party.65 A mediator’s interventions to rectify an 56 ICF, FAQ ICF Code of Ethics (2009), “Coaching World”, p 8. 57 Hardy, n 50. 58 This applies primarily to facilitative mediation. Other mediation models may be less process focused and structured (see Folger JP and Bush RAB, “Transformative Mediation: Theoretical Foundations” in Folger, Bush and Della Noce (eds), Transformative Mediation: A Sourcebook (Institute for the Study of Conﬂict Transformation, 2010) pp 24-25). 59 Hardy, n 50. 60 NADRAC, Australian National Mediator Standards – Practice Standards (2007) p 9. 61 McSwan, n 49, Consent form: Paxis – Dispute Resolution. 62 ICF, n 3, p 3. 63 Brandon and Robertson, n 10, p 63. 64 Charlton R, “Practical Realities in Dispute Resolution” (2009) 20 ADRJ 10 at 12. 65 Benjamin R, The Risks Of Neutrality – Reconsidering The Term And Concept (2001) Mediate.com, http://www.mediate.com/ articles/benjamin.cfm viewed 19 November 2010. A comparison of conﬂict coaching and mediation as conﬂict resolution processes in the workplace (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 49 imbalance of power may breach the concepts of neutrality and impartiality,66 which are regarded as important qualities of a mediator.67 If power imbalances remain unaddressed, however, the mediation may result in unfair outcomes because the more powerful party may dictate the process while the needs of the less powerful party are largely ignored.68 It must then be considered that the mediator’s evaluation of the parties’ power may be subjective and thus incorrect. Astor has argued that the relationships of power between the parties may not be random and may need to be considered during mediation.69 This is supported by Mayer who cautioned that it is unrealistic to remedy pre-existing inequalities in a few hours.70 Power imbalances can cause an ethical dilemma for mediators because they may feel urged to balance parties’ self-determination and fairness of the process and outcome.71 In conﬂict coaching, the opposing party to a conﬂict is not present during the session. Thus a coach does not need to immediately deal with power imbalances in the conﬂict coaching room and does not face the ethical dilemma encountered by mediators. Nevertheless, Mayer cautioned that power is integral to all interpersonal relations, and always has an effect on dispute resolution processes.72 For this reason, power relationships are likely to play a role within the client’s conﬂict and need to be addressed. According to Jones and Brinkert, conﬂict coaching provides a safe environment for people with little power to determine power sources and develop desirable strategies and tactics.73 They further suggest that “conﬂict coaching concerning power is arguably most helpful as it fosters clarity regarding communication behaviours”.74 With the absence of the other party, however, it might be difficult for a coach to correctly assess power relations. Clients might be oblivious to how power structures are contributing to the conﬂict situation. Thus the validity of the strategies and tactics developed during conﬂict coaching may depend on the accuracy of the description of the power relations by the client. There is no simple answer as to which process is more suitable if signiﬁcant power imbalances exist between parties to a conﬂict. It appears that it is more likely for these power imbalances to become evident or problematic in mediation than in conﬂict coaching because both parties are present in mediation room. On the other hand, this provides an opportunity to acknowledge the imbalances and deal with them immediately. Power relations contributing to the conﬂict have a less problematic impact on a coaching session, but may also be less evident because only one party is present. Relevant information can only be provided by the client and may thus be one-sided because they are dependent on the client’s judgment. CONCLUSION The above analysis has identiﬁed important criteria distinguishing mediation and conﬂict coaching as independent approaches to conﬂict resolution. It has become clear that certain elements of a conﬂict will determine whether mediation or conﬂict coaching is the more suitable dispute resolution process. 66 Astor H and Chinkin CM, Dispute resolution in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002) p 151. 67 Riskin LL, “Understanding Mediators’ Orientations, Strategies, and Techniques: A Grid for the Perplexed” (1996) 7(24) Harv Negot L Rev 47. 68 Cobb S and Rifkin J, “Practice and Paradox: Deconstructing Neutrality in Mediation” (1991) 16(1) Law & Social Inquiry 35 at 45. 69 Astor H, “Some Contemporary Theories of Power in Mediation: A Primer for the Puzzled Practitioner” (2005) 16 ADRJ 30 at 31-32, 35. 70 Mayer B, The Dynamics of Conﬂict Resolution (Jossey-Bass, 2000) pp 51, 53, cited in Charlton, n 81 at 12-13. 71 Taylor A, “Concepts of Neutrality in Family Mediation: Contexts, Ethics, Inﬂuence and Transformative Process” (1997) 14 Mediation Quarterly 215 at 221. 72 Mayer B, “The Dynamics of Power in Mediation and Negotiation” (1987) 16 Mediation Quarterly 75. 73 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, p 119. 74 Jones and Brinkert, n 16, p 136. Herrmann 50 (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 First, it is advised to check the number and availability of people involved in the conﬂict. If only one party is willing or available to engage in a resolution process, then conﬂict coaching is the only possible support process. Conﬂict coaching would also be advised if one person is in conﬂict with a number of others, since the person might be exhibiting a pattern of conﬂict behaviour which can be addressed during conﬂict coaching. Client and sponsor should also consider the complexity of the conﬂict and the objectives they would like to achieve within the conﬂict resolution process. It is recommended to determine whether the focus is on reaching a mutually acceptable agreement or to enhance the development of broader, long-term conﬂict management skills of the parties involved. The former supports mediation, while the latter suggests conﬂict coaching as the more appropriate service. Other criteria such as the time frame for the intervention process, power imbalances, the role of the mediator and preferences in formality and conﬁdentiality may further inﬂuence the suitability of either mediation or conﬂict coaching as strategies for conﬂict resolution. A comparison of conﬂict coaching and mediation as conﬂict resolution processes in the workplace (2012) 23 ADRJ 43 51