Seeing the human.

The power of the mediation process was highlighted recently when a respondent, after hearing the perspective of the complainant and just as the mediation was about to close, asked for a short private session, to have a discussion on whether it would be offensive or disrespectful to the person to offer some monetary acknowledgment.

The other party had not put any quantum discussion forward as an option and had already indicated to the respondent they had felt heard, acknowledged, and that raising the complaint had already made a positive difference. They indicated they were in a very positive space as a result of the discussions taken place.

This request from the respondent highlighted for me the work of Ken Cloke, where he talks about the power of the mediation process, when it allows parties to see the other as a human being again. Often prior to a mediation parties talk about each other in dehumanising language and attitude and when you observe the parties making positive change, it is very humbling to witness it.

“One reason mediation works is that it makes adversaries human to one another…It acknowledges the existence of the emotional needs of the parties, and allows both sides to tell the inner truth, the subjective and emotional truth, along with the supposedly ‘objective’ truth.” Cloke adds:

“Mediation works because the motivation of disputants is made the centre and object of the process…it works because it accepts people as they are and allows them to change and become better; it does not judge their actions, but helps them to do what they believe is right…it accepts the human condition, while affirming its desire for self-improvement”

This mediation stood out to me because of the way all the parties in the room really took the time to hear each others truth and allowed space for the possibility of human errors from both sides.

If you know of people who are in a conflict situation (especially, if they have started using dehumanising language about each other) then mediation (or a facilitated conversation) may be of assistance. Contact me for a free confidential discussion to discuss options.

Why did you do that?

How often do you catch yourself asking someone, “Why did you do that?” and then getting into a situation where things have escalated?

A number of years ago,  I ran a Hall of Residence for University students. It was both an incredibly rewarding and  incredibly challenging role and experience. The majority of students were in their late teens and in the main impressive, engaging and respectful.  On occasion I also dealt with students who made errors in judgement and the responsibility fell to me to deal with such things.

One particular incident I had to deal with was when a dome security camera had been ripped off a ceiling. I had a conversation with the alleged vandal and in response to my asking him about what he had done, he folded his arms and said in a somewhat defensive tone,  “How do you know it was me?” 

At this point I asked him whether he wanted to think about that question for a nanosecond, or would he rather just see the last 30 seconds shown on the video feed?  After a couple of minutes he twigged and realised the video feed probably had a brilliant shot of his face and hands reaching up and ripping the camera off the ceiling. 

I then proceeded to ask the most useless question of all, “Why did you do that?” and I got the predictable and unhelpful response, “I don’t know”. In doing this, I had created a situation of escalating the incident.

Flight, fight or freeze.  As my question started with a ‘why’ it is more likely to be perceived as accusatory, and increases the chances of them going into a ‘fight, flight, or freeze’ response,  which subsequently makes resolving the issue that bit more difficult. 

If I had framed the question differently, using open questions which were less threatening, such as, “Help me understand what was going on for you at that moment?” or “What questions might I have about what happened?” or “What can you tell me about what happened?” or “How can we resolve what has occurred?” or “What information do you need to know from me at this point?” the conversation may have opened up and the situation may have been resolved much more quickly.

The outcome of the conversation with the student was a requirement for them to pay for the replacement of the dome camera. Incidentally, the parent also got involved and demanded they be allowed to keep the damaged camera, seeing they had paid for it... However, that is another story!

Storm in an egg cup

How quickly things escalate. My partner said she wanted a bit of the soup I had made myself for lunch, which I took literally, and put soup in the smallest glass dish I could find.

Her humorous retaliation came shortly after with the making of a cup of tea for me...in an egg cup!

I could tell this was not going to end well...

I joked with her that I was so looking forward to cooking her dinner that night!

While the above was very much done in the spirit of fun for both of us, it is a good metaphor for how quickly something can escalate because people have taken issue with something someone has said or done. Phrases such as below are often the 'road to escalation'

 "I am going to win"

"I am not going to back down"

"I am going to make sure that person pay for that..."

"They need to be taught a lesson"

When this thinking or language start being expressed, it can be a good indicator that the issue is on the 'road to escalation' and whatever the original issue was, is at risk of getting lost somewhere along the way.

It can be useful if you hear yourself using 'road to escalation' expressions and reflect on the needs or or values that underpin that position.

David Rock's SCARF model is a really useful tool to help work out what needs or values might get triggered leading to an escalation of an issue.

You might be interested to know, I was sensible to not carry on the humour with the egg-cup. Mainly because...I know I would lose that game!

Problem...not the person

"That person is a...." or  "That (insert expletive) person is incredibly difficult" are statements which are commonly made and at the same time incredibly unhelpful.

While it is recognised as a way of expressing an opinion or feelings about a person, focusing on the person can create a significant barrier to changing or influencing an outcome beyond confirming a view that "this person is and always will be "difficult".

Basically, they have pressed your button. They have said or done something which is contrary to your needs, wants and/or values. If your  perspective is that the 'person' is difficult', then it is much harder to resolve, or have a meaningful conversation about the issues,  because it is now tied with the person's character, instead of some behaviour.  You may even find yourself in the heat of the conversation questioning their parentage!

If you chose instead to focus on the "It" - that is, what specifically it is that the person has said or done,  then the options to resolve the situation  greatly increase.  Sometimes a useful strategy can be to note in some way what the behaviour was that triggered the "that person is xxxxx difficult"

Increasing our own awareness of the reason why 'it' (x's behaviour) pressed our button, will minimise the chances of the situation escalating and of us over-reacting.

A focus on the  person and not their behaviour creates for us a fight, flight, freeze response because the brain perceives an attack from a person, whereas if it's a problem, we know how to sort those...we are naturally good at that!

Getting rid of the "That person is difficult..."type language is not easy. I would be interested to hear from others what strategies they use to help them change the focus to be about the problem and not the person.

Working through conflict...by yourself - link post →

Cinne Noble poses some great self reflective questions to assist if you are afraid of raising an issue because you fear hurting the relationship and the other person.

Being right is okay...being right and influencing others is great →

Richard Cohen's views on the importance of suspending your view is worth a read.

Mediation is a no brainer

The majority of people are not comfortable being in conflict with one another. We naturally prefer a state of equilibrium. Sickness and significant stress can and does result from unresolved conflict.

When conflict occurs in a workplace or organisation, the impact is huge. If it can be successfully worked out without the need for someone independent, that is the second best outcome - next to not actually having reached that point in the first place!

Question which is often asked, "what if I go to mediation and it doesn't work?"

Short answer is, in all likelihood, through the mediation process  you will have:

• resolved some, if not all of the issues  
• a more informed understanding of the issues. 
• significantly reduced the likelihood of escalation

Often organisations like schools and not for profit organisations which operate on tight budgets, are often resistant to get someone external to assist with a conflict situation because of the perceived cost. 

This needs to be weighed up against the risk and cost if if doesn't resolve without external support. In my role as  a mediator who assists organisations with disputes I am acutely aware of the importance of early intervention and resolution.  I suspect the financial and reputation cost far outweighs any short term cost involved in a mediation process, especially if lawyers have been required or if the issues have made it onto social media or news outlets.

These potential risks and benefits make having mediation as one of the early resolution strategies a no brainer!