A reflective look at impartiality, consultancy, and the blurry edges between them
Many mediators encounter this tension. You are invited into a workplace to support the resolution of a particular conflict between two individuals, and along the way you notice broader structural or cultural problems. You may be qualified and well positioned to help. The question becomes: how do you honour mediator impartiality while not ignoring issues that fall outside the mediation brief?
The Two Hats Problem
Wearing more than one professional hat is common in our field. Many mediators also work as coaches, consultants, trainers, policy reviewers or organisational advisors. This is normal in a developing profession where clients prefer integrated support.
The challenge is not the dual expertise itself, but the timing and context. Mediation relies on impartiality. It hinges on trust. When parties believe the mediator is impartial, committed to self-determination, and not carrying a hidden agenda, they feel safer to speak openly.
Consulting, however, is a different relational posture. It involves offering opinions, diagnosing problems, and recommending change. The consultant is engaged for expertise and direction. The mediator is engaged for process and facilitation. These roles sit comfortably side by side in general, but they can clash.
This tension sharpens when broader systemic problems appear in the shadows of a mediation process.
When Systemic Issues Surface in Mediation
Organisational mediation often shines a light on deeper issues. You might notice:
unclear reporting lines
inconsistent policy implementation
lack of psychological safety
cultural patterns that reward avoidance
risk management gaps
inequitable workload or authority structures
These insights can emerge in pre-mediation meetings or during the joint conversation. Mediators routinely hear things managers have not yet heard and pick up patterns that no one inside the system has had the distance to identify.
What do you do with that information? The mediator’s role is not to advise, but neither is it to ignore systemic concerns, especially where the situation may create risk. This is where thoughtful boundaries matter.
Staying Anchored in Impartiality
A helpful starting point is to remind yourself of what impartiality looks like in practice. It includes:
not favouring one party’s story
not aligning with managerial or organisational interests
allowing each party to set their own goals
not shaping outcomes to fit your preferred model
not offering solutions that could benefit you professionally
It also involves self-awareness. If you notice yourself thinking “I could fix this if they just let me at their policies”, that is your cue to slow down. That feeling is normal. It is also a sign to pause rather than to act. The question becomes: how do you ethically create a pathway for non-mediation support without compromising the mediation?
Offering Consultancy Without Undermining Mediation
There are ways to navigate this terrain that respect the mediator role while still making support available.
Separate the conversations
If systemic issues arise, the mediator can acknowledge them without shifting into analysis. A phrase like “That sounds like a broader organisational issue that sits outside the mediation. If you like, we can talk after the mediation about next steps” can hold the boundary. The key is to avoid blending roles in real time. The mediation space remains focused on the parties’ goals and choices.
Protect party autonomy
Even when systemic issues are raised, the mediator should not present consultancy as a recommendation or a fix. Instead, offer information in a way that leaves control with the client. For example: “If the organisation wants support with policy review, that would be a separate process with its own scope and choices.” This reduces any perception that the mediator is steering the conversation for their own future work.
Create transparent pathways
Some organisations value integrated services, particularly when systemic issues repeatedly drive conflict. In those cases, it can be useful to set up transparent pathways at the contracting stage. You might outline that you offer both mediation and consultancy, and that any shift between them would require a new agreement. This helps avoid awkward conversations when issues arise.
What Can Be Shared: Patterns, Themes, and Process Insights
Mediators can sometimes offer a high-level observation about the system so long as:
it relates to the structure or process rather than any person’s story
it does not reveal who said what
it does not allow the organisation to infer which party holds which view
it does not rely on confidential details
it could reasonably have been observed externally
This means you are not sharing information from the parties. You are sharing information about the environment in which the conflict is occurring.
What Cannot Be Shared: Anything Traceable to a Party
Confidentiality prohibits:
quoting a party
summarising their views
indicating who raised a concern
hinting that “people feel” something when the source is obvious
making comments that could reasonably allow the manager to pinpoint which individual disclosed what
Here are some examples that would be problematic:
“One of the parties feels unclear about who they report to.”
“Some staff feel that HR is not consistent.”
“One person said the policy was being ignored.”
“I got the sense that one side is afraid of retaliation.”
These link directly to personal disclosures and are invariably off limits.
How to share systemic observations
A safe systemic observation focuses on the organisational frame rather than the content of the mediation. For example:
“It appears that different parts of the organisation interpret the reporting structure differently.”
“The policies seem open to multiple interpretations.”
“There seems to be uncertainty about how decisions move between levels of the organisation.”
“There may be differing expectations about informal problem solving, which could be worth reviewing.”
“There appears to be no agreed referral pathway for escalating workplace concerns.”
These statements do not reveal anything about what any specific person said. They speak to systemic ambiguity rather than personal disclosure.
Framing
A mediator can preface any conversation with a clear commitment to confidentiality. Something like:
“You know that the mediation process is confidential, so I will not share anything said by any individual. What I can offer is a very high-level process reflection on organisational patterns that were visible from my perspective in the work.”
Then the mediator can offer observations that could have been made based on general organisational dynamics, not on confidential disclosures. For example:
“From an external observer’s perspective, the organisation might benefit from clarifying decision pathways. I can share information about services that support that work, if that is something you want to explore separately.”
This is abstract enough to protect confidentiality, yet concrete enough to be useful.
Offer the Process, Not the Diagnosis
A reliable safeguard is to avoid diagnosing the system unless the organisation invites it deliberately. When a mediator wants to keep boundaries clean, they might instead say:
“I can’t comment on anything from the mediation, but if you would like a separate organisational review, that is something I can offer as a different service. You would set the scope and I would work with you using new data sources, not information from this mediation.”
This keeps the mediation intact and protects both impartiality and ethical boundaries.
Building an Ethically Sustainable Model
Some practitioners choose to keep mediation and consultancy strictly separate in their business. Others prefer an integrated practice where clients can access different services through one trusted provider. Both can be ethical if well designed.
A sustainable model includes:
clear contracts that distinguish roles
written explanations of confidentiality and limits
staged decision points before any shift in role
a commitment to revisit impartiality risks as they arise
regular supervision or reflective practice to test your own assumptions
It can also include periodic communication with organisational clients about when mediation is appropriate and when consultancy or training may be better suited.
Walking the Line With Integrity
The heart of this issue sits in the mediator’s professional identity. You want to help. You can see the systemic gaps. You want to offer value. Yet the reason you were engaged in the first place was to create a space where parties can speak freely and find their own way through.
Honouring that role often requires restraint. Mediation asks you to bracket your expertise in favour of the parties’ own wisdom. Consultancy invites you to use that expertise for organisational improvement. These are related but distinct commitments.
Perhaps the real skill is knowing when to remain in one role, and when to step thoughtfully into another, with full transparency.
Questions for reflection
What tells you that you are slipping from impartial facilitator into problem solver?
How do you notice the urge to advise, and how do you hold it lightly?
What processes can you put in place now so that when governance issues emerge, you can respond with clarity rather than improvisation?
Finding your own answers will allow you to serve clients more fully, while protecting the integrity of your mediation practice.