Here’s a summary of the comments which have come in on email:

Susan: Select words that have meaning to the participants, not just to the mediators

Listening without Interruption
Exchange of Views
Identifying Issues and Topics
Developing Options
Reaching Decisions

---

Joan: I am a bit concerned about the name of ‘Talking it out’ when at least half of the time should be / is about listening. I think it goes too comfortably into norms of society, and falls into a trap that has been identified by George Lakoff : using language that people relate to but not paying attention to the mental models that come with it.

I also wonder about the word ‘perspective’ and if that may not become the ‘new’ UNINTERRUPTED TIME in terms of rocky lingo.

The other blocks are RIGHT ON. Because this early block is soooo key to beginning the process and buy-in that it’s worth some more thought.

---

Brenda: Good thoughts, Joan. It seems as if the identifiers we use to delineate the steps in the process are more for the mediators than the parties. They name the task to be done during that part of the process. We caution trainees to eliminate those identifiers because they are mediator jargon. What Joan is proposing might reorient the mediators into looking at their tasks in a different way. If I’m focusing on “perspectives”, might that make me a more focused listener giving less attention to protecting the parties UT?

---

Caroline: Change “Setting the Agenda” to something like “Listing the Topics”
Differentiate Building the Agreement into 3 stages (however you want to label them) comprising

• generating options
  
• testing options for fit with interests
  
• testing options for workability

Use “Exploring the Situation” instead of “Understanding the Situation”?

My problem with “Understanding” is it seems to me to be ambiguous in ways that might unconsciously reinforce some new mediators’ misconceptions about the mediator’s role in this stage. For one thing, “understanding” something can mean realizing what the facts are or what the truth is about something. The label “Understanding the Situation” might reinforce the common misconception among new mediators that they have to “understand what really happened.”

For another thing, “understanding” can mean “agreeing” (as in “we’ve reached an understanding,” or “harmony and understanding, sympathy and trust abounding”). So the label could reinforce another common new-mediator misconception: that they are supposed to try to get the disputants to see things from each other’s perspectives (nice work if you can get it, but not necessary for resolution). It might potentially lead more new mediators to make more of those risky interventions we sometimes hear along the lines of, “But can you understand Bartholomew’s concern here, Georgette?”

Also, since “Understanding the Situation” may sound more like a goal than an activity, it might not do the best possible job of orienting new mediators to the tasks they should be doing during this stage. The proposed labels for the other stages describe activities more than goals. What’s more, the goal of this stage seems to me not so much a generalized understanding as a teasing out from the tangle certain specific kinds of information — the necessary topics and interests — and focuing the disputants on the future.

I like “Exploring the Situation” because it unambiguously describes the activity of the stage, and emphasizes the possibility of surprises and discoveries, which seem crucial to the translation process at the heart of this stage. And it even addresses Susan’s question whether we can provide mnemonic continuity for people long familiar with the old labels: since it starts with “Ex,” “Exploring” might remind people more easily that it’s the old “Exchange.”

---

Brenda: I agree that “understanding” is ambiguous and rather broad. Are we trying to back our way around the conflict spiral to get at the core issues? Are we helping the parties to “unravel”, gain “clarity”, see the Light? With over 180,000 words in the English language, surely we can find the most effective word. I like the idea of breaking down Building the Agreement into three sections.

I also am glad to hear that Setting the Agenda is being revised. I have tried many ways to teach that and am never successful. It seems as if the parties reach a point where at least one person has lifted one leg out of the past and throws out or offers a resolution. I want to hear the response rather than jump in and see if they are ready to set an agenda. Typically, the offer will foster more dialogue and often more offers or counter offers. Why interrupt the flow? I use the checklist to make sure that all issues are covered. etc.

Over blueberry muffins, hot from Caroline’s oven…..

We’re wrestling with what to do if we replace our familiar terms (”exchange” “uninterrupted time” “interests” etc.) with ones we think are more accurate or more useful. Will the new purpose-centered names for the process stages confuse people who learned mediation with the earlier editions? In what ways might it be aggravating for trainers to make the switch? New names are here: Building Blocks.

My preference is to go with the new conception, and have some kind of reference in the text or sidebar that clues in folks who are used to the previous terms. The point of putting out a book (or training people, for that matter), is to help people mediate effectively. If we have better ideas about how to do this than what we previously taught….shouldn’t we present those ideas front and center?

OK, and I admit to an irrational bias: for years I’ve sponsored a contest to get rid of “uninterrupted time” as unspellable, unpronouncable, focused on what we DON’T want (interruptions). I remember when we invented the term “Exchange” and have been bemused to watch it spread through other mediation manuals. In the end, it doesn’t really help — it just says “warning, messy communication ahead”.

Let us know what you think.

A question to those of you out there who have published extensive training materials online as well as published paper versions. First of all, we THANK you –James Melamed, Conflict Resolution Network (Australia), Beyond Intractability, Madaripur Legal Aid (Bangladesh) — and many others.

Do you find that the online availability cuts into your printed material sales? Does it increase requests for training and advising? We’d appreciate hearing other organizations’ experiences.

Excuse the interlude while I’ve been in Greece. My internet connection to the blog is blocked by the place I’m working….

Came across a particularly felicitous post on mediate.com a few days ago: Michael Jacobs on Finding Common Ground. Felicitous because his ideas are thought-provoking AND he presents them eloquently (what is it in England’s water that makes so may Brits excellent writers?).

It’s true that looking for mutual interests can often end you up with smushy generalized statements “of course you both love little Suzy and want the best for her”, when the combattants disputants are acutely aware of and furious about their differences.

Not only is Jacobs right that exploring differences brings the conversation down to the ground of specifics, from a negotiation perspective, identifying differences is useful also. When parties have somewhat different needs and resources there’s more room for trading off or sharing. It’s easier to assign workshifts when one person prefers weekends and the other week nights. It’s easier to work as a team when each member has their own expertise.

The reason we look for “common ground” is mostly because we know that if you like or empathize with someone, you’re more disposed to accommodate them. No wonder disputing parties resist any suggestions that they are simliar to the other side.

Anthropologists know that “differences” are what help people define and protect their sense of identity–as individuals and as members of groups. WE aren’t like THEM! Group Q will focus inordinately and gleefully on the differences and grievances between them and Group X (which to an outsider looks a LOT like Group Q, hence the need to reinforce those differences).

Don’t know if any of these thoughts will make it into the Handbook but it’s interesting to think about. Maybe in the discussion of interests and mutual goals and laying out options.

My reply to William Kaplan’s comment on the previous post about conflict being fun, living, and natural spilled over into several paragraphs, so I’ll post it here as a separate entry.

+++

Eileen always said people who enjoy fomenting conflict make the best mediators ….And she would linger long and deliciously over the word f o m e n t.

But back to the disputing parties, most rarely think they’re having fun or appreciating experiencing LIFE at its most natural…. Are you saying that mediators can retain a sense of relaxed perspective on other people’s conflicts if they treat it as a natural & lively drama?

I like using the conflict-is-a-drama theme when I teach — describing negotiation/mediation as a choreographed moment when the parties come together on the stage, interacting for the edification or amusement of a larger (if invisible) audience.

I’m inclined to talk about this later in the “culture” section. Dramatic presentations of conflict and the process of resolution are are used to claim and define identity. “Can you believe that he did X?” “Professionals don’t behave like Y.” The conflict is part of a larger group’s “conversations” about how people should fight, what they feel justified in fighting ABOUT, who has a claim, and how disputes are “resolved” (or not). All the stages of conflict, from casual complaints and gossip through shunning or killing are ways a community works out who belongs, how they are different from other groups, who has authority and status, what issues and principles are important. It’s like watching a local soap opera.

It’s useful for mediators to 1) understand that they’re the producers (rather than the directors) of a dramatic moment and disputants will behave with their imagined audiences in mind, and 2) these dramas are culturally and identity-specific, both in terms of the process people expect to follow, and their criteria for proper resolution, and 3) as William and Eileen would suggest, to relish the “aliveness” of the comedy and tragedy being played out around the table rather than being freaked out about whether the mediators can keep a lid on.

Fun stuff. Not sure how much to put in the Handbook.

[*Eileen Stief, co-author]

Longtime colleague William Kaplan called out of the blue yesterday and I joined him at the mostly air-conditioned Lansdowne’s local Regency Cafe. Sipped a vanilla Italian soda for a wide ranging leisurely chat about our work. Ah summer!

I promised to send him the rewritten “understanding conflict” pages and will post the conflict section here so all of you can comment.

Ideally, we’ll condense these to just three pithy pages of text, three of illustration. At the moment it spills over. A few pages on negotiation theory basics will follow this section. Most other info about conflict and resolution belongs either on a more extensive web page, or in another book.

The question is, what do we absolutely need to say about conflict in order to help *mediators* think clearly — their attitude towards the parties, the way they assess the situation?

Note that I haven’t yet created the new handwritten layer for the spiral graphic. As in the previous edition, it will show the “mess”, starting with the self, a escalating outward to interpersonal, group, organization, society.

About Conflict (PDF).

Most of what I’ve posted so far has to do with words.   Each word we choose will channel the mediator-reader’s attention and understanding in a particular direction. This is good, we want the words to do that.

The more you know, the harder it is to pick the “best” word — because each word has its own cluster of associations and meanings, and those never map exactly onto real life experience.

Why sweat it?  Well, writing is really the process of THINKING. (That’s why writing is hard work.)   This rewrite is a chance to RETHINK.   Where are the words we’ve been using to structure a mediator’s attention and thought, what mood do they create, what associations do they imply?

Fortunately, writing is also a process of making decisions — hundreds of decisions small and large.  So write me your opinions soon, before I bite the bullet and set these choices into print!

For those of us in the field, “interests” and “positions” are staple categories. A legacy of Getting to Yes, I presume. They’re NOT easy concepts to for newcomers to work with.  Sources of confusion:

1)  “Interests” have a narrower meaning in legal and political discourse: “Self-interest” or “conflict of interest” involves a direct financial or power advantage for you or those close to you, the stake you have in an outcome.

2)  In contrast, mediators use “interests” as a catch-all for underlying motivations. Ury’s definition is “the intangible motivations that lead people to take positions – needs, desires, concerns, fears, and aspirations.”  Some authors extend this to see emotions — “I feel disrespected” — as an “interest.” It seems to me that such a broad definition becomes functionally unhelpful to mediators trying to sift through the barrage of information and feelings dumped on the table.

3) And what do we do with tangible motivations — “I need a reliable car” or “our cash flow depends on your timely payment” — are these now considered “positions”? Learners are often especially confused by statements such as: “We workers need to be paid for overtime.” This “position” also expresses an main “interest”. Is getting paid a desire or aspiration, or is it a demand?  True, there’s a slight difference in wording between a request and a stated need, but we don’t want the main point to get bogged down in fine semantic distinctions.

4)  Interests come in nested layers (this is explained in the current Handbook already). If you start with a position and use the “WHY do you want that” method of getting at interests, you can go through a long chain of WHYs, as each statement has further rationales underlying it. Each identified “interest” becomes in turn a position in relation to a yet deeper reason. Furthermore, a  party will have multiple interests, even conflicting ones, some deeply emotional, some immediate and practical. How does the mediator pick through the debris to find the interest that can motivate resolution?

5)  I often explain “position” as a “premature solution”. However, demands are just one kind of position. As set of rules, criteria, or values can also be a position: “Anyone who volunteered their time should be invited.” “No child is allowed to perform without written parental approval.” “As supervisor, I make the rules, and Joe needs to follow them.” “As a matter of principle, we will not make under-the-table payments.”

6) And what happens after there has been some negotiation, and a party now presents a new proposal that incorporates some of the ideas and concerns of others? Is that a new “position”? Or is it now simply a “proposal.”?

I think what we really mean by “position” is

a *public *initial and *inflexible statement about the present or future that is likely to constrain dialogue or overly narrow the set of possibilities parties can look at.

++++++

If we use the colloquial “NEEDS” and “DEMANDS” would that be more helpful for mediators in identifying helpful understanding of motivations versus rigid demands?

Some possible problems: “needs” sounds gooey – “needy” in fact. “Needs and wants” is more accurate but a mouthful.  “MOTIVATORS” may be more helpful but jargon-y  (unfortunately the simpler word “motives” has negative overtones).

Demands, as noted above, are only one kind of position. “Proposals” sounds more formal yet less judgmental than “demands.”

Looking for pathways out of this theoretical swamp….to put mediators on firmer ground.

Mediation for Managers: Resolving conflict and rebuilding relationships at work.  By John Crawley and Katherine Graham, 2002.

This book doesn’t seem to have drawn much attention, but it’s worth having on your shelf. The authors give sensible and clear advice throughout, using lots of bullet point lists and sample scenarios.  The advantage of a book by Brits is that a plain Jane how-to handbook still has felicitous turns of phrase.

“Disputes often form an anchor for people’s emotions and their perceptions of themselves and others. Take the conflict away and life loses a defining shadow. “

Throughout their book,  attention to impartiality is particularly thoughtful:

“It is this consistency of approach, and the removal of the notion of victim and perpetrator, protagonist and respondent, that gives mediation its transparently impartial quality.”

The first half of the book outlines how a manager or in-house person can mediate individual and group conflicts. This is a vital skill set because, as they note,  organizations rarely bring in outside intervenors until much too late. And that someone “parachuting in” can’t have the depth of knowledge or possibilities for follow-through.

The second half of the book muddies the concept of mediation by presenting  ways managers can use mediator’s attitudes and tools when  they are a party to the dispute  (organizational, customer).   The chapter topics hit the hot buttons: dealing with isms,  dialogue under pressure,  investigating sensitive issues, and building internal CR capacity.

A few familiar words and phrases here and there suggest that they’ve incorporated some of  our Mediator’s Handbook ideas.  Now I plan to return the favor and use some of theirs!

Some tidbits:

• Process:  Their process involves extensive one-on-one meetings  before joint sessions occur.   This may be particularly helpful in organizational conflicts.
• Structure: Reflect, exchange, move on
• How people use anger:  1) appropriate expression of feeling, 2) displaced onto another person/topic,  3) covering up other emotions, 4) habitual tack (control, playing victim, revenge), and 5) strategic (to intimidate, get attention, deflect blame).
• Don’t reassure. Acknowledge anxieties instead.
• Impartiality:   notice your body — it will tell you if your thoughts are not congruent with what you’re doing as mediator.  Parties WILL pick up on those dissonances.
• Practical:  Call the parties the morning of the mediation to make sure they aren’t ducking out.  Have them wait outside the room until everyone has arrived.
• Formality:  in setting up a mediation room and in your tone etc., try to match the level of formality that the parties seem comfortable with.

+++++

This book is  now available as a free PDF download. To uncompress you’ll need a RAR extract program:  Extract Frog is free & cute. Or if you want to look at it right now, Google books has (fuzzy) major excerpts.

Their company website.

So what to call the skill set that in the previous Handbook was CONTROLLING THE PROCESS? Subheads include skills and decisions such as: directing conversation, summarizing, restating, protecting, intervening, when to quit. Each of the following verbs contain a fistful of assumptions about what actually happens or “should” happen in a mediation.

Controlling the process — the mediators are in charge, they structure the conversation, decide what content and behavior are acceptable, prevent hostility from getting out of hand.

Directing the process — similar goals, with a gentler hand, and with the implicit or explicit permission of the parties.

Managing the process — the mediators structure and facilitate, while consulting and persuading the parties to participate effectively. Implies that the process is never complete or perfect, requiring attention and tweaking as discussions progress.

Overseeing the process — the mediators and the participants are collectively creating the process, with the mediators in the role of consultant, designer, advisor, facilitator, and/or teacher.

Facilitating the process — the mediator is charged with making the process easier, making it work. It leaves open the question of whether the participants or the mediators design the process and make process decisions along the way. [I'm tilting towards using this one]

Guiding the process — the mediator is piloting the process, but not necessarily actively facilitating it. They may be backstage advising or coaching.

Advising the process, process consultants — the participants are in charge, and ask the mediators to assist within a given set of criteria.

Thoughts appreciated.