Working With Shiv Martin Consulting: Engagement Process and Frequently Asked Questions
Updated: 3 days ago
An engagement with Shiv Martin Consulting runs in five stages: a confidential first conversation, scoping, a tailored proposal, delivery and follow-up. The first conversation decides which service fits, so you do not need to know whether you need training, facilitation, coaching, mediation or consulting before you get in touch.
Most decision-makers who contact me are not short of options. They are short of clarity on how an engagement works, what it involves and what to tell their manager or procurement team. This page sits above the individual service pages. It explains the process from first contact to follow-up, whatever the service turns out to be, and answers the questions government and enterprise buyers raise internally.
Shiv Martin Consulting is a founder-led consultancy in Brisbane working across Australia and New Zealand. I have practised dispute resolution for 15+ years, worked with 50+ government and business organisations, and the practice holds 40+ five-star Google reviews. Those are our own figures. What sits behind them is a simple discipline: work out what the situation needs before choosing the tool.
Key Takeaways
Every engagement follows the same five stages: confidential conversation, scoping, tailored proposal, delivery and follow-up.
You do not need to know which service you need. Working that out is the purpose of the first conversation.
Not every matter needs mediation. Some need training, facilitation, coaching, consulting or a clearer management decision.
Fees are scoped to the engagement and discussed in confidence, not published, because the work is tailored.
In-house training is built around your legislation, your complaints context and your real conversations, then embedded with follow-up.
Conflict is not a failure. It is often a signal that something important needs attention.
Summary: The Five Stages at a Glance
Stage 1: Confidential first conversation
What happens: We work out what the situation actually needs
What you bring: A plain description of the team or matter and your constraints
What you leave with: A candid view on which service fits, including when none of ours does
Stage 2: Scoping
What happens: We test the detail: context, legislation, participants, outcomes
What you bring: Policies, case patterns (de-identified) and decision-makers' expectations
What you leave with: A shared definition of the problem and the result you want
Stage 3: Tailored proposal
What happens: A written proposal built for your context
What you bring: Your procurement and approval requirements
What you leave with: A document you can use in an internal business case
Stage 4: Delivery
What happens: Founder-led work in the room or online, supported by the expert panel where needed
What you bring: Participants who are released to attend and a clear internal sponsor
What you leave with: Language, structure and confidence for the next difficult conversation
Stage 5: Follow-up
What happens: Support after the work, and capability building over time
What you bring: Feedback on what is and is not working
What you leave with: Skills that hold up beyond the training days
How Does a Dispute Resolution Engagement Unfold?
An engagement has five stages: a confidential first conversation, scoping, a tailored proposal, delivery and follow-up. The stages are the same for training, facilitation, coaching, mediation and consulting. Only the content changes. Nothing is fixed until the proposal, and the first conversation carries no assumption about which service you will end up with.
Stage 1: The confidential first conversation
The first conversation exists to understand the situation, not to sell a service. I ask who is involved, what has happened, what has already been tried, what is at stake and what deadlines or approvals sit around it.
You can discuss a matter without naming individuals. Many buyers start there. What helps is a plain account of the pattern: where the tension sits, how long it has been there and what people are reacting to.
The outcome is a view on what fits. Sometimes that is a multi-day in-house training. Sometimes it is a single facilitated conversation. Occasionally it is a recommendation that the matter needs a management decision or an investigation rather than anything I provide. That candour is the point of having the conversation first.
Stage 2: Scoping
Scoping turns a general need into a specific design. For a training engagement, I ask about the legislation your staff work under, the types of complaints or disputes they handle, who will attend and what they already do well.
I also ask for the real case patterns, de-identified. Generic content is the most common reason training does not stick. When I delivered in-house communication and early-resolution training for an ombudsman office's complaints teams, the work was built on that office's actual patterns of emotionally charged contact. The teams gained shared language and structure for their hardest conversations, and no one had to leave the building to get it.
For a matter-based engagement such as mediation or facilitation, scoping covers the parties, the history, the practical constraints and what a good outcome would look like.
Stage 3: A tailored proposal
You receive a written proposal. It sets out the objectives, the structure of the work, who delivers it, the format, the participants, the assumptions and the fee. It is written so that you can lift it into an internal business case or attach it to a procurement request.
If your organisation needs the proposal in a particular format or with particular information, say so in the first conversation. It is far easier to build that in than to retrofit it.
Stage 4: Delivery
Delivery is founder-led. I am in the room, or on the call, doing the work. Where a matter benefits from additional expertise, I draw on the multidisciplinary expert panel.
The strongest example of why in-house delivery matters is a federal government department that needed tribunal-facing staff trained in mediation. Rather than sending people to generic external courses, I designed and delivered a five-day accredited mediation training in-house, tailored to the department's statutory context. The whole cohort trained together, inside their own regulatory frame, practising on the kinds of conversations they actually have.
Stage 5: Follow-up
The engagement does not finish when the last session does. Follow-up is part of the design, and it is covered in detail later in this article.
How Do You Choose Between Training, Facilitation, Coaching, Mediation and Consulting?
Choose by what the situation needs, not by which process is most familiar. Training builds capability across a team. Facilitation structures a group conversation. Coaching supports one person. Mediation and conciliation help parties in a defined dispute reach their own agreement. Consulting reviews systems and processes. Conflict is a signal, not a failure.
The summary below is a short decision guide. It is qualitative on purpose. Real matters rarely fit one box, which is why the first conversation matters.
In-house training
Usually fits when: A team needs shared language and skills for recurring difficult conversations
Probably not the right fit when: One specific dispute is already live and needs resolving now
Facilitation
Usually fits when: A group needs a structured conversation about roles, change, workload or a shared problem
Probably not the right fit when: The issue is a conflict between two named people that needs a confidential, party-led process
Conflict coaching
Usually fits when: A leader or individual needs support to handle a conflict or a hard conversation well
Probably not the right fit when: The other party must be in the room to resolve the matter
Mediation and conciliation
Usually fits when: Parties are in a defined dispute, are willing to participate and can make their own decisions
Probably not the right fit when: The matter is really misconduct, needs an investigation or needs a manager to decide
Consulting
Usually fits when: The same conflicts recur because of process, policy, role clarity or complaint-handling design
Probably not the right fit when: The immediate need is one conversation between specific people
Process fit beats process habit
Organisations tend to default to a familiar process. Under pressure, that is usually mediation or an investigation. I use a set of Process-Fit Distinctions to test the default: mediation versus investigation, conflict versus misconduct, early resolution versus avoidance, neutrality versus fairness, empathy versus agreement, and psychological safety versus comfort.
The issue is rarely just the personalities. Role clarity, workload, power, procedure and culture often sit underneath. If you treat a system problem as a personal one, you will mediate the same dispute again next year with different people.
Conflict is a signal
Most workplace conflict does not start with a dramatic event. It starts with a small issue everyone decides to manage around. By the time it surfaces, people are responding to the silence, the delay and the perceived unfairness as much as the original concern.
Treating conflict as shameful drives it underground, where it compounds. Treating it as information lets leaders respond early and proportionately. For any matter before formal escalation, I use The Early Resolution Sequence: clarify the issue, understand what matters, choose the right process, create structure, support the conversation and document the next step. Step three is where most of the value sits.
Want to step in earlier when tension starts to build?
My recorded course, Managing Workplace Conflict Early and Well, is a practical 60-minute session for leaders, managers and HR teams. It covers the early warning signs, how to tell conflict apart from misconduct, and how to choose the right response before things escalate. It is $180 (including GST), with a course guide and six months of access.
Why Are Fees Not Published?
Fees are discussed in a confidential conversation because cost depends on scope: the service, the number of participants, the days involved, the degree of tailoring, the location and your context. A published price would overcharge simple work or understate complex work. Scoping first means the proposal reflects the actual job.
This page does not state fees, and that is deliberate. A multi-day in-house training built around a tribunal's statutory framework is a different piece of work from a single facilitated session for a team in transition. A number on a website cannot honestly cover both.
What you can expect is a clear written proposal that shows what is included, what assumptions sit behind it and what would change the fee. Most government buyers must demonstrate value for money under their own procurement framework (for Commonwealth entities, the Commonwealth Procurement Rules). A scoped proposal supports that far better than a generic price list, because it ties the spend to a defined need and a defined result.
Two practical tips. First, tell me early if you have a budget range or a funding deadline. It shapes the design and avoids wasted effort. Second, tell me who will approve the spend and what they will want to see. I can write the proposal for that reader.
What Do Government and Enterprise Buyers Ask Before Engaging?
Buyers most often ask about confidentiality, tailoring to legislation, geography, format, group size, program structure, the expert panel and internal approvals. The short answers: confidentiality is built into the first conversation, content is tailored to your statutory context, delivery covers Australia and New Zealand, and the practical detail is settled in scoping.
1. How is confidentiality handled?
The first conversation is confidential. You can describe a team or a matter without naming individuals, and what you share is used to work out fit and design a proposal, not passed on. For matter-based work such as mediation, confidentiality is also part of the process itself and is set out with the parties at the start.
2. Can the work be tailored to our legislation and complaints context?
Yes, and it should be. This is the core of the in-house model. Training is built around the legislation your people work under, the types of contact they handle and the case patterns they face.
The five-day accredited mediation training for tribunal-facing staff was designed around the department's statutory context. A newer example is the Navigating AI in Complaints and Dispute Resolution offering, which covers fairness, evidence integrity and workload realities when complaints are generated or assisted by AI. It runs both as public sessions and as tailored in-house delivery for regulators and complaints teams.
3. Do you deliver across Australia and New Zealand?
Yes. The practice is based in Brisbane and works across both countries. Location is a scoping question: it affects format, scheduling and how the work is structured, not whether it can be done.
4. Should delivery be in person or online?
In my experience, skills practice works best in the room. People rehearse hard conversations, get feedback and build trust with colleagues more readily face to face. Online suits shorter briefings, follow-up sessions and coaching, and sometimes it is the only practical option for dispersed teams. We decide in scoping, based on what the work needs and what your people can access.
5. What group sizes work?
It depends on the activity. Briefings and awareness sessions can accommodate larger groups. Skills practice, role-plays and feedback need smaller cohorts so everyone gets real practice time. I will recommend a size in the proposal and explain why, and if you have more people to train, we can design repeat delivery rather than diluting the quality of one session.
6. How is a multi-day training structured?
A multi-day training is designed as a sequence, not a single event with extra hours. Early days build shared concepts and language. Later days put those into structured practice using your real case patterns. The proposal sets out the day-by-day structure, the learning outcomes and any assessment if the training is accredited.
7. When is the expert panel used?
The multidisciplinary expert panel supports delivery where a matter or team needs expertise beyond what I bring directly. Whether it is needed is decided in scoping and set out in the proposal. You will know who is involved before you approve anything.
8. How do I prepare internal approvals?
Start with three things: the problem in a sentence, the result you want and the date you need it by. Then identify who signs off and what they need to see. Bring those to the first conversation. The proposal can then be structured to answer your approver's questions, whether that is a business case, a procurement request or a briefing note.
What Do Individuals and Practitioners Need to Know?
Individual leaders and practitioners can enquire directly at any point, including before a matter formally escalates. For leaders, the usual entry points are coaching or advice on process. For practitioners, it is professional development. You do not need an organisation's backing to start a conversation about fit.
When should I enquire directly?
Earlier than you think. If you are a leader managing a conflict and you are not sure whether it needs coaching, a facilitated conversation, mediation or a decision, that uncertainty is the reason to ask. Delay is not the same as care. A slow, careful response often arrives after people are reacting to the silence rather than the issue.
Practitioners should enquire if they want training that goes beyond theory, such as accredited mediation training or practical development in complaints and early resolution. If you are a party to a dispute and need legal advice about your rights, get that separately. The first conversation is about process, not legal advice.
What should I expect?
Expect a measured, professional conversation. I will ask questions, tell you what I think the situation needs and say so plainly if it is not something I should be doing. If we proceed, you will receive a written proposal and a clear explanation of what happens next. There is no pressure to pick a service in advance.
What Happens After Delivery?
After delivery, follow-up support and capability building help the work hold. Training that is not used fades quickly, so follow-up is designed into the engagement from the start. What helps is a defined way to revisit real cases, reinforce the language and structure, and adjust as new situations arise.
The test of any training is whether people use it in the next difficult conversation they have at work. Follow-up is how that gets checked. It can include a check-in on what is working, a session on harder cases that came up since, or support for managers who are applying the approach with their own teams.
Capability also builds over time. Teams change, legislation changes and complaint behaviour changes. The rise of AI-generated complaints is a clear example: the demand for practical guidance on fairness, evidence integrity and workload came from public-sector and business buyers who had solid existing skills but a new problem. Many clients return to extend the work to new cohorts or new issues, which is easier because the foundations are already in place.
For matter-based work, follow-up is often a short review of whether agreements are holding and whether anything in the system needs attention. The aim is not ongoing dependence. It is a team that can handle the next conversation without me.
Not Every Matter Needs Mediation: What an Early Conversation Often Finds
The hardest decision in dispute resolution is often not the outcome but which process to use to get there. Many enquiries arrive labelled "we need mediation" and leave with something else. That is not a failed enquiry. It is the first conversation doing its job.
Consider a hypothetical. A team leader contacts me because two senior officers have stopped working together and the team is taking sides. The request is for mediation. In the first conversation, a different picture emerges. Both officers are competing for the same responsibilities because nobody has decided who owns what. The conflict is real, but it is a symptom of an unmade management decision.
Mediating that dispute would be like repairing a relationship while the cause keeps operating. What fits better is a clear decision from the manager on role allocation, followed by a facilitated team conversation about how the change will work.
If the relationship still needs repair afterwards, mediation or coaching can follow, and it will be far more likely to succeed. This is an illustration of the kind of finding a first conversation produces, not a description of a specific client.
My position is that organisations over-use mediation in the same way they over-use investigation: because both feel formal and defensible. But a formal process applied to the wrong problem is just slower avoidance. Clarity is kind. Telling a buyer early that they need a decision, not a mediator, saves their people months of waiting.
That is why I ask you not to arrive with the answer. Arrive with the situation. The right conversation, at the right time, in the right structure, beats rushing to a familiar tool. Book a confidential conversation to discuss your team or matter. You do not need to know which service fits before you get in touch.
FAQs
Do I need to know which service I need before I get in touch?
No. Working out which service fits, or whether none does, is the purpose of the first conversation. Arrive with a description of the team or matter, any deadlines and who needs to approve the work. The service decision comes from that, not from you having to pick in advance.
How much does an engagement cost?
Fees are scoped to each engagement and discussed in a confidential conversation, not published. Cost depends on the service, the number of participants, the days involved, the tailoring and the location. You receive a written proposal setting out the fee and the assumptions behind it.
How long does it take from first conversation to delivery?
It depends on the scope, the complexity of the design and the speed of your internal approvals. Tell me your deadline in the first conversation. If it is tight, we can discuss what is realistic and whether a staged approach would work better.
What if mediation is not the right fit for our matter?
I will say so. Depending on the situation, the better fit may be coaching, facilitation, training, consulting, an investigation or a clear management decision. The first conversation is designed to find that out before you commit time or budget to the wrong process.
Who delivers the work?
Delivery is founder-led. Shiv Martin is a nationally accredited mediator, practising lawyer, conciliator, certified trainer and facilitator. Where a matter needs additional expertise, a multidisciplinary expert panel supports the work, and the proposal sets out who is involved.
How do I engage a mediator or trainer, and what should I prepare?
Start with a confidential conversation. Prepare a plain description of the situation, the result you want, your timeframe, who signs off and any procurement requirements. Then ask what the practitioner's accreditation and experience are, how the work will be tailored to your context and what follow-up is included.
Ready to talk? Book a confidential conversation to discuss your team or matter. You do not need to know which service fits before you get in touch.
.png)