Having used this in facilitating meetings, I’d like to insert “visioning” as one option at the start of the “Building Agreement” , just before making a topic list or generating options.

Have you used “envisioning” as part of your mediation process? If so, I’d appreciate your insights on how well it worked, particularly in 1) hostile or 2) coolly business type disputes.

Here’s my 2 page draft: envision.pdf

I am gazing into my crystal ball…. it’s all foggy…..no wait, wait…. I see a handsome man, yes, a shining light……..yes maybe a white cat ……. no wait, they’re … they’re yowling and scratching….! They’re storming out of the mediation…. you’ve blown it again.

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.

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.