How firm is the mediator’s hand on the wheel? Here’s a new framework we’ve come up to help mediators understand the range of choices they have between directive and full consultation.

The paragraphs below are written in the context of mediator’s choices in structuring the discussion — is it time to ask another question, to move on to the next phase, to get more background information, to continue with the current discussion even if it is “off topic”?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the directive style is fine when things are flowing smoothly. Participants can pay less attention to process choices when the conversation is working for them–the meta-level view can be a distraction, and usually the mediator’s directiveness is not experienced as controlling.

The more uncertainty and emotion, the more time the mediator needs to take to consult with the parties about next steps. Consultation slows things down, widens the conversation space. In thinking through process options together, mediators place themselves in the position of an advisor: listening and inquiring , until appropriate choices become clear.

More direct ←

Directive
Be directive if you are setting them up for the next structural task in the general process you have laid out for them earlier, and if they seem comfortable with your facilitation.

• The next step is coming up with a number of options.
  
• Harry, could you say more about that?
  
• Let’s take the next 10 minutes to wrap up; we’ll come back to the topic in our next session.

Be very careful your tone is low-key explanatory, as if you were telling a friend how to find a restaurant. It’s not about getting them to listen to you and follow your rules. It’s about you helping them get where they’ve said they want to go.


Checking-in
This directive approach adds a check-in to make sure participants are okay with the proposed direction. Use it when the parties seem stressed or uncomfortable and yet you’re fairly confident in what task should come next. If they hesitate, move to the next more consultative option.

• It probably makes sense to start with topic Z, because you all seem to have more energy around that topic. Is that okay with you?
  
• Marian has made an offer. I think you’re not quite ready to talk about solutions yet. Can we note it and come back to it?

More consultative →

Choices with a recommendation.
When more than one direction might work, offer the parties real choices (i.e. you’re okay with any of them). Limit choices to 2 or 3, and then indicate which one you prefer.

• You can continue this conversation weighing the merits of Joe’s idea; however, I’m not sure we are all clear about the details of what he’s proposing. I suggest we take a few minutes just for clarifying questions. Is that all right with you or would you rather keep going on this current thread?

Why give your recommendation along with the choices—doesn’t that privilege the mediator? Remember YOU are in charge of the process. You also have more knowledge about mediation process and a more detached perspective. Parties who are already in adversarial mode can easily fall into adversarial arguments about process, especially in the early part of the mediation, rather than talking about what is on their mind and heart. If you then intervene and make a decision, you have taken sides. Better to have them disagree with your preference instead of with each other!


Full consultation
When you are unclear how to proceed, it means you need more information about any or all of these:

People: First, check in with how they are doing in terms of emotions, concentration, energy level. Do you or they need a break? Use the time to clear your head (one mediator goes for a walk around the block!), to talk with your co-mediator, and, if useful, to briefly check-in individually with each party.

Process: Find out how are they experiencing the communication between them. Is there anything that would help make it easier for them to speak, and to listen? (Suggest a few options for them to consider.)

Problem: Often mediators and the parties find their initial view of the situation changing: “facts” realign, truer interests emerge, new hot spots flare, dilemmas crystalize. Discuss with the parties how they are seeing the situation now: Is their goal for the mediation changing, or their sense of priorities? Is there other information they need to gather? A point of agreement they need to revisit? Do others not at the table need to be brought in or consulted?

• Here’s what I see happening. I know you want to settle this matter, today if possible. Let’s talk about what your priorities for the remaining time are. What do you want to accomplish here?
• I’m concerned that we keep returning to this same topic, even though you all seem to be in agreement about what to do. Help me understand what worries you about that agreement, what about the topic still needs attention? Is there something else that needs to be resolved first?

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.

Friends Conflict Resolution Programs was laid down in June 2010, after almost 40 years. It had shed its skin and re-emerged in new colors many times. This Quaker program developed a county-wide mediation program during the experimental years of community mediation. In the following years, they worked with schools, giving adult trainings, (and supported each edition of this Handbook). For the past 15 years, Caroline Packard, the main staff person, provided mediation and facilitation services throughout the region, especially for nonprofit organizations, business partnerships, divorce, and institutional disputes.

This year, each week, Caroline and another longtime FCRP volunteer, Joan Broadfield, have been faithfully working with me to produce the 4th edition, and the resulting manuscript is — ack, a mess!, torn apart, added to, shifted around — and, we hope, altogether richer, more accurate, and more helpful than the original.

In FCRP’s early days, they chose program initiatives that were experiments, on the cutting edge of working with communities in need. Once the experiment was ticking along, the project would be spun off to local community ownership in the spirit of “empowerment” which was the buzz word of that era. The county mediation program FCRP started was spun off in 1982.

And now our top has finally spun itself to a close, but the ripples spread wide and make us happy.

Thanks to all the long-serving FCRP staff, starting with Charlie and Ann who both left us long ago. Betty, Eileen, Sandi, Chel, Keelin, & Caroline, as well as Joan, Ed, and Brenda. Love you all.

Elise Boulding died last week. She was an activist, sociologist, mother, feminist, Norwegian-American, author, Quaker, wife to a famous economist-poet, professor, a founder in the field of Peace & Conflict Studies …and much more.

A brief reminiscence from someone who only knew her in passing: When I was a 20-something intern in mediation, I attended the first National Conference on Peacemaking and Conflict Resolution (1983, I believe). Elise Boulding was the keynote speaker. I got up the nerve to speak with her–and as we sat in the coffee shop, two important things happened. The first was that she agreed to write the forward for my book Peacemaking in your Neighborhood. If it weren’t for her endorsement we probably would have sold 300 copies!

The second was a small thing…. As we were talking, the conference organizers swept by, expecting her to come join them for lunch. She declined, and after they left she said with a twinkle, “you know I always avoid the important people at conferences. I like to talk to the 20 and 30 year-olds who are doing the new and interesting work.” At conferences I have tried to follow her example ever since (one notable set of coffee shop conversations was with the nannies of famous anthropologist mothers, but that’s not a tale for a mediation blog )

The final night of the conference, Elise Boulding got up to speak, looked down the stage with its row of men and one woman (the organizer), gazed out into the full hall. She observed that a good majority of the attendees were women. While all week long the speakers been men. Women are given the role of peacemakers in many societies, she said, they are the experts in how to do this work of resolving conflict. The stage should be full of them! The audience burst into wild cheers. And to give all of us in the field credit, many women have come crowding onto the stage since then. Thank you Elise!