By Mario Lofranco

Over the past 18 months, we have become accustomed to seeing each other through a small rectangle, with a person’s name on the bottom of that screen, and a Wi-Fi strength indicator located in the bottom left corner. Since the beginning of the current academic year, I have had the pleasure of presenting seminars to varying groups of post-secondary and graduate students – some at the master’s level and some at the undergraduate level. The first workshop was a conflict resolution workshop for Lassonde School of Engineering Student Leaders. The second workshop was for students enrolled in the Master of Industrial Relations and Human Resources program at the U of T’s Center for Industrial Relations and Human Resources. This post looks to compare the workshops, the means by which they were presented, and then analyze the pros and cons of the virtual mediation world in relation to the experiences I had with my own developing mediation experience and these workshops.

First Virtual Workshop

The workshop with the Lassonde School of Engineering Student Leaders was a great example of how the virtual environment can be disengaging for some. Throughout the day, we had a bunch of great questions, but I can now understand the plight that professors face when trying to speak or present to a bunch of black screens due to people not having their cameras on. It can be disheartening and difficult to facilitate because a) you don’t know if the person behind you is paying attention, and b) you cannot gauge or read the social cues that are being given.

Nonetheless, from the students that did engage in the workshop, we went over a common issue that arises in almost every facet of life: You are in a team, there is a task, and two people have different ways of approaching said task. In this case, the student raised the question: what to do when there exists conflict between two members on a team in deciding how to solve the group task? We provided feedback and suggested ways to solve the conflict at hand, but the virtual nature of the presentation (and endless sea of black screens) made it difficult to gauge if the student was understanding what we were saying. We tried to even go through a little role-play scenario where the students get to put into practice what we were talking about for the two-hour presentation. These can be the difficulties with the virtual environment, but we have some useful tips to make the virtual seminar/mediation more engaging.

First, reach out to the person who organizes the seminar and ask them to ensure that students have their cameras on. This could be through an incentive (e.g., participation marks) or through a more human approach and telling the students that having the camera on demonstrates respect to the presenters and to get more out of the seminar they should keep their cameras on. Second, at the beginning of the seminar, you can ask people to turn on their cameras and inform them that they should feel free to raise their hand to ask questions or put them in the chat. Finally, take many 5–10-minute breaks throughout the seminar because it helps people recharge and be more engaged. That is to say, all of these steps work and will make the seminar more engaging and fulfilling. Although these are tips that we found helpful, we want to acknowledge the ongoing concerns with adopting these approaches. First, there are potential privacy or personal concerns. People may be in a location where they do not feel comfortable sharing opening their camera because they have young children or are in a poorly lit room. Second, turning on the camera uses more data, which could cause internet issues and slow down the Zoom. Third, accessibility concerns must be considered as well—namely, not everyone may have access to a computer (e.g., people may be calling into the Zoom instead of using a computer). All this to say, we must be respectful of people’s situations and acknowledge that not everyone has the ability to turn their camera on and be engaging. Some people just want to listen and that is how they feel comfortable learning. At the end of the day, these seminars are meant to help people learn a new skill or improve a pre-existing one. As instructors, the best thing you can do is be accepting of everyone’s situation and come to the presentation with energy and knowledge!

Second Virtual Workshop

With the UofT workshop, my co-mediator and I participated in the workshop virtually. However, this time we decided to implement some of the techniques we learned from a professor. Namely, we had a routine schedule and asked at the beginning if people felt comfortable turning their camera on, it would be great as it would help the presentation be more engaging. We found that the presentation went well, but the mediation was even better. We conducted a 50-minute labour mediation, having 4 students from the MIRHR program participate as the parties (i.e., union-side v. management side). For me, this was great because I ended learning about a new form of mediation—labour mediation. My co-mediator and I were invited back to conduct another presentation and mediation for Professor Bob Thompson’s collective bargaining course in February of next year. This is something else that I am now looking forward to.

Comparing The Two Methods

Now, how does this relate to mediations in a virtual environment? In conducting a few mediations thus far, I have noticed that the same pros and cons parallel that of an online seminar about mediation. Online mediations have the potential to be more efficient and cost-effective. They are more efficient because you do not have to make your way to a central meeting spot. You are able to just open up your laptop and press “join meeting”. This may also allow for an easier way to balance people’s busy schedules. Likewise, virtual mediations are also more cost-effective because you do not have to pay for transportation or schedule more than the allotted mediation time off work.

However, the cons of the virtual mediation setting, just as in the virtual seminars, are the lack of engagement from people involved, the difficulty to read social cues, and the inability to deliver everything in a totally virtual environment. The lack of engagement from people involved can be prevalent in a virtual setting because, during the mediation, the parties may be distracted from what is going on in their homes or on their computers. The difficulty to read social cues is something that can lead to miscommunication when either speaking to a party or when the parties are speaking to one another—for example, interrupting one another due to poor internet connection. Finally, the inability to deliver everything in a totally virtual environment is something that is seen when after the mediation parties want to shake hands or hug to show physical signs of affection, this may be difficult and may lead to people not getting the full mediation experience. This may also raise issues of social inequality as not everyone may have access to a computer to join a Zoom call or even a quiet space in their home. The virtual setting has its pros and cons, and, through experiencing presenting mediation seminars and conducting virtual mediations, I have been fortunate to see these firsthand which will aid in progressing further on in the year.

Conclusion

Virtual mediations or presentations are not going away anytime soon. I think they are important because they can increase the number of mediations that can be accomplished over a span of time. Although they have their cons, I think their efficiency is what makes them valuable for many types of mediations or seminars. Of course, this is a case-by-case basis, but it is something mediators will have to deal with as we enter into the post-pandemic world. All I can say is that I am grateful to experience both sides of the coin, and I believe that we can use these virtual settings to our advantage for years to come.