00:00 — A mediator alongside the organisation
Nadav Nishri talks with Yotam Keizman, introduced as head of their mediation school and workplace-mediation practice. Yotam describes working as an employment lawyer for employees and employers before developing this work alongside divorce mediation. An ongoing mediator supports an organisation, rather than appearing only after a crisis. The original audio and video are Hebrew; this is a detailed episode guide. Roles and offers described are those at recording, not a newly verified staff directory.
Original episode audio in Hebrew
Watch the original episode (Hebrew)
03:14 — Three functions, not one emergency service
Yotam identifies three functions: mediate specific disputes, advise on handling conflict and human crises, and teach mediation language within organisational culture. Employees, managers, senior executives and partners can all be involved. This is not a promise that every organisation needs the same service. Support can mean resolving a disagreement, helping plan a difficult conversation or developing skills before a dispute becomes entrenched.
04:37 — What an external mediator adds to HR
Nadav asks why HR cannot do this already. Yotam welcomes HR professionals who enjoy and handle conflict well, while recalling others burdened by being the workplace parent who settles everyone’s quarrels. HR may also influence dismissal, promotion and departmental placement, making candid disclosure difficult. An external role can help, but payment by the organisation does not automatically establish impartiality. Explain the remit, conflicts of interest, reporting arrangements and safeguards against retaliation.
07:47 — Legal advice remains necessary
They distinguish employment-law questions—pensions, overtime, contracts and dismissal—from the relationship between particular people. Yotam worries that asking only what an employer may legally do can push a conflict toward defensive action. Nadav adds that an involved in-house lawyer can sometimes help. Mediation complements legal advice; it does not erase duties or rights. Nor is it accurate to say company lawyers have no confidentiality: identify whom the lawyer represents and what protections apply.
11:14 — The relationship level and the organisational level
They distinguish broad consultancy on structures, collection processes, products, weekly meetings and organisational change from sitting with two actual people. These fields can overlap; Yotam explicitly says he does not claim complete knowledge of organisational consulting. Fixing a reporting structure may matter while hurt and mistrust still need attention. The mediator works on the relationship alongside HR, management, legal and organisational expertise rather than replacing those functions.
13:49 — People bring more than their job descriptions
Colleagues often did not choose one another. Shared company goals sit beside personal hopes for salary, advancement and satisfaction. Poor sleep, illness or an argument at home may enter the office too. The speakers call work a second home to describe its significance, not to insist every employee spends more time there than anywhere else. Communication problems may involve cultural, gender or personal differences; they should not be reduced to stereotypes.
15:07 — Make conflict’s hidden cost visible
They describe water-cooler conversations, distraction, reduced effort and time spent replaying an argument as costs that may not have a budget line. Nadav recalls a survey and estimates hours lost and later a dramatic reduction through training. Those remembered figures are not established savings for your organisation or a proven effect of this service. Assess actual time, turnover, unresolved grievances and working relationships; constructive disagreement can also produce better ideas.
16:28 — Retention, belonging and a respectful departure
Yotam argues that an employee satisfied with the work and pay may still leave because of a difficult colleague or manager. They contrast belonging with competing through massages and other purchasable perks. These are reasons to take relationships seriously, not proof that every benefit is ineffective. Mediation may support staying or a more respectful departure. It does not guarantee retention, remove a right to complain or sue, or justify accelerating dismissal to replace someone.
19:23 — A private space with clear limits
Yotam imagines someone discussing another job offer or difficulties at home without every detail being passed to management. A trusted mediator can support frank conversation, but confidentiality and any exceptions must be explained rather than promised without limits. Agree what may be shared, with whom and for what purpose. Being neutral does not mean ignoring danger, discrimination or serious misconduct; mediation should not replace an investigation or necessary protection.
20:54 — Mediation language permits difficult emotion
Nadav clarifies that pleasant conversation is an aspiration, not a condition: they can work with anger and difficult exchanges. A trainee named Roi had remarked that he was becoming less attached to offering opinions. Nadav’s point is not that a mediator has no thoughts, but that the mediator’s preferred answer is not the decision. Helping people listen and choose differs from advising them to adopt the mediator’s personal view.
22:50 — Shared goals before individual solutions
They imagine even a junior employee hearing why a manager made a decision and contributing ideas. In New Partnership, establish where people want to arrive together first, then explore individual needs and work backwards to mechanisms. Organisational success, stable work, development and belonging can be starting points, not assumptions everyone must accept. Hawaii versus Africa illustrates incompatible destinations. Their bakery metaphor asks how to create more possibilities rather than merely divide a fixed cake.
26:00 — Reactive help and preventive work
Yotam describes a dispute between senior managers rippling through teams and products; in one account, a possible departure threatened the company’s stability. This is an anecdote, not a prediction about all executive conflict. A mediator can respond to a specific incident or support relationships over time, helping team leaders address emerging differences before a crisis. Nadav’s examples of one, two or three hours are illustrations, not guaranteed resolution times.
28:34 — Teaching skills, with historical offers kept in context
They discuss helping managers combine authority with humane communication, plus lectures, online learning, simulations and practical experience. Their recording-era promotion mentions a course costing a few hundred shekels, a team of nine mediators and a lecture of roughly ninety minutes to two hours plus questions. These are historical descriptions, not current prices, staff numbers or bookings. Their enthusiasm does not establish a guaranteed percentage reduction in disputes.
31:39 — Collaborative negotiation rather than fixed-sum competition
Nadav contrasts trying to increase one side’s share at the other’s expense with adding resources, people and options that may improve both outcomes. A long-term relationship gives a reason to care whether the other side can live with the result. A mediator may coach an executive, manager or employee on that conversation. Clarify whether the role is one-sided advice or impartial mediation before using private information across roles.
32:52 — Get acquainted before there is a fight
They propose mapping relationships through ordinary introductory meetings, not arriving to interrogate staff about problems. Difficulties move and change; knowing the people can make later contact easier. A workshop or periodic, perhaps monthly, session can maintain communication so that calling Yotam is familiar when tension appears. Scope and access should fit the organisation. Mapping relationships is not permission to circulate private disclosures or build hidden employee dossiers.
34:38 — Remote work needs deliberate communication
Yotam describes WhatsApp, email and Zoom, with colleagues in America and Europe. Short written messages can lose context and create misunderstanding; cross-border teams add language and cultural differences. Nadav’s universal verbal/nonverbal percentages should not be used as a rule for all communication. The practical lesson is to clarify meaning and choose a useful conversation format, not to assume a punctuation mark reveals intent or that video always solves the problem.
36:35 — A room that does not reinforce the hierarchy
A manager’s office can make an employee feel the hierarchy before anyone speaks. They favour a comfortable, quiet, private, neutral room, inside the workplace when suitable or elsewhere. The junior employee and CEO can meet as people while their actual job responsibilities remain. The mobile mediation truck and shared rooms in every city are ideas, not existing infrastructure. Their then-described locations and travel times are not a current availability guarantee.
40:24 — Explain the process and seek real consent
Yotam begins with an opening tailored to the situation: what mediation is, the mediator’s role, benefits, limits and questions. Yotam estimates twenty to twenty-five minutes for this opening in their practice, not a universal timetable. Participants may choose whether to proceed and sign a process agreement; being sent by an employer is not the same as freely agreeing. The purpose is enough trust to talk safely, with support or other routes where needed.
42:20 — Hear stories, then build practical arrangements
Each person can describe their experience while the mediator helps the other actually listen. Shared goals give the framework for examining interpretations, individual needs and options. Work partners resemble a couple caring for a shared enterprise in the speakers’ analogy, not a literal family obligation. Personal conversation may include home life or even a dog; disclosure and friendship remain optional. Nadav describes a hurt from a CEO conversation carried for four months: acknowledging it can help, without requiring an apology or guaranteeing it disappears.
46:05 — From two partners to dispersed organisations
Their proposed service ranges from two business partners to organisations with thousands of employees: relationship mapping and learning, negotiation support, and mediation of specific disputes. Video can connect people across branches and countries. They contrast difficult cross-border litigation with perhaps three or four Zoom conversations as an example, not a promise. Relevant employment rights, authority to agree, applicable law, privacy and any formal procedures still need attention; a video agreement does not automatically settle them.
48:35 — Procedural justice and the meaning of being heard
Yotam invokes procedural justice: voice, participation, understanding the reasoning and transparent decision-making can influence perceived fairness, alongside the result itself. He links this to the rationale for hearing an employee before a dismissal decision. Nadav notes that hearings often occur late; Yotam criticises practices that miss the original purpose. These are his analysis, not a complete statement of hearing law. A genuine opportunity to speak must not become a ritual after a predetermined decision.
51:02 — Human infrastructure, not a guaranteed cure
Yotam wonders why this role is not already widespread; Nadav responds that informal peacemakers have long existed and argues for restoring dialogue to working life. Their aim combines employee well-being with effective organisations, not artificial harmony or the disappearance of conflict. They close with invitations to learn and share. The practical invitation is to choose suitable support and evaluate actual outcomes, without promising perfect harmony or a guaranteed cure.
Read the original Hebrew episode page