Just to build slightly on this week's other post, the concept that we always need to be learners is a powerful one. "As soon as you think you're ripe, you're rotten" holds a lot of weight. When people are in conflict, it is this kind of thinking that forces people into entrenched positions. As mediators and as people who sometimes find ourselves in conflict, we should always be asking ourselves, "what else is there for me to know?"
Notice, it's not, "what are they not telling me?", or "what are they hiding?", but "what else is there for me to know?" The idea is to dig out, not only what we don't know, but what we don't know we don't know. For instance, I know I can mediate most conflict situations. What I know I can't do is perform surgery on someone. I've never been trained as a surgeon and have no medical knowledge or experience that would allow me to perform such a task, this I know. It is information that I know I don't know. However, my sister recently became a body builder. She constantly monitors her caloric, carbohydrate and salt intake. She carefully mixes cardio workouts with her regular strength-building routines. Before she eats or exercises, she considers several different factors and how each might impact her. I never knew that bodybuilders had to be so conscious of every little detail. I assumed they simply lifted weights frequently and tried to avoid hurting themselves. So my sister has gained, and now shared, information that was so new to me, that I didn't even know it existed for me to learn it.
The information that we don't know we don't know makes up most of the information that exists in the world. What we don't know we don't know about the other people in conflict is the information that drives the conflict. I know that I don't how bothered my boss when I turned that report in one day late. What I don't know I don't know is that other co-workers have been consistently late with their reports and that our boss is starting to feel like her authority is being disrespected.
What we don't know we don't know is where conflict lies, and only through exploration, based in compassion and a desire to understand, will that information surface.
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
"As long as you think you're green you grow. As soon as you think you're ripe you're rotten."
That quote was echoed most recently by my professor, but I've heard it stated before. After some digging, it turns out that the original expression was, "When you're green, you're growing. When you're ripe, you rot", and was stated first by Ray Kroc, the found of McDonald's. At the heart of this quote is the idea that we must always remain open to learning. The moment we think we know everything there is to know, we shut ourselves down to learning. This concept has many applications, but there are two areas related to mediation where I think it can be helpful.
1. Mediators must be open to learning and developing their skills as a mediator. The moment a mediator decides they are a "great" mediator, they close themselves off from other learning opportunities. I think every mediator should go through a basic, 40-hour mediation training once every five years. Over the past six years, I've sat through seven 40-hour trainings taught by either one of two trainers, and I learn so much more every time. Mediators need to push themselves to take continuing education courses, even if they don't sound interesting. I recently attended a workshop entitled "How to attract a great mentor". I didn't think it would provide any learning related to mediation, but some of the material got me thinking. When you are networking with potential mentors, the relationship must be reciprocal. You need to be engaged in their story, and want to know more about them personally, and not just view the relationship as a networking opportunity. So when I go on informational interviews with potential informal mentors, I ask a lot of questions about them, and how they go to where they are. It deepens my relationship with that person, and often takes the relations closer to friendship, rather than just a mentor/mentee relationship. In mediation, we can use this way of thinking to develop deeper connections with participants. If we develop our curiosity, it encourages us to ask. If we engage in their story, it keeps the process focused on what they want in mediation, and not what we want them to get.
2. Similarly, when we think we have heard all the facts, we are about to rot. In mediation, it's difficult to determine when it is time to move the process along. We may think we know all there is to know about a topic or the conflict, but the participants' energy is what should guide the process. Rather than determine whether you have all the facts, understand that there is always more to know, and more to learn. Ask questions. Explore. Let the participants let you know it's time to move on. When the same information comes up over and over again, and your questions are not uncovering anything new, then it is time to move on. As long as there is new information coming at you, the situation is still green and growing. Even when you do move the process along, be sure not to think that it might be ripe. Be open to exploring again if something new comes out. You may be in the middle of writing the agreement, but if new information is still coming out, be open to exploring it. Let the participants know that you can schedule additional time with them to visit those new topics.
1. Mediators must be open to learning and developing their skills as a mediator. The moment a mediator decides they are a "great" mediator, they close themselves off from other learning opportunities. I think every mediator should go through a basic, 40-hour mediation training once every five years. Over the past six years, I've sat through seven 40-hour trainings taught by either one of two trainers, and I learn so much more every time. Mediators need to push themselves to take continuing education courses, even if they don't sound interesting. I recently attended a workshop entitled "How to attract a great mentor". I didn't think it would provide any learning related to mediation, but some of the material got me thinking. When you are networking with potential mentors, the relationship must be reciprocal. You need to be engaged in their story, and want to know more about them personally, and not just view the relationship as a networking opportunity. So when I go on informational interviews with potential informal mentors, I ask a lot of questions about them, and how they go to where they are. It deepens my relationship with that person, and often takes the relations closer to friendship, rather than just a mentor/mentee relationship. In mediation, we can use this way of thinking to develop deeper connections with participants. If we develop our curiosity, it encourages us to ask. If we engage in their story, it keeps the process focused on what they want in mediation, and not what we want them to get.
2. Similarly, when we think we have heard all the facts, we are about to rot. In mediation, it's difficult to determine when it is time to move the process along. We may think we know all there is to know about a topic or the conflict, but the participants' energy is what should guide the process. Rather than determine whether you have all the facts, understand that there is always more to know, and more to learn. Ask questions. Explore. Let the participants let you know it's time to move on. When the same information comes up over and over again, and your questions are not uncovering anything new, then it is time to move on. As long as there is new information coming at you, the situation is still green and growing. Even when you do move the process along, be sure not to think that it might be ripe. Be open to exploring again if something new comes out. You may be in the middle of writing the agreement, but if new information is still coming out, be open to exploring it. Let the participants know that you can schedule additional time with them to visit those new topics.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Control
As I was meditating this morning, I was thinking about control. My attention was focused on the sensation of my breath moving past my nostrils, when cars outside my window would zoom by and my focus would shift to the noise outside. I wondered if I should move to the back bedroom where there is less noise from the street.
Moving to another room would have been an attempt to create the perfect conditions in which to meditate. Surely, there is no point to meditate where there are no distractions. Or is there?
Isn't that the point of meditating? Meditation is the practice of constantly bringing attention back to one focal point. Other noises are not ignored, and feelings that arise during meditation are not repressed, but they are acknowledged and let go. If I had moved to a quieter room, I would have been ignoring and denying the noise, rather than practice refocusing despite the noise. I was trying to control my environment in a way that made it easier to do what I wanted, rather than work toward being able to do what I wanted despite setbacks.
I'm currently reading a fascinating book entitled, Mindset, by Carole Dweck. She identifies two types of mindsets, fixed and growth. The fixed mindset believes that talent is something we are born with, and that you either have it or you don't. Setbacks feel like failures to the person with the fixed mindset because it is an indictment. Setbacks say, "you don't have the talent, so why are you even trying?". The growth mindset is a bit different. The growth mindset believes that any person can, through effort, learn to do anything. Setbacks to a person in the growth are simply learning opportunities.
I remember being a kid, sitting at the kitchen table across from sister, arguing with her about whether or not a person, with enough determination, could move a glass of water with their mind. We both eventually realized that we simply didn't have the talent to do such a thing. We tried, but after failing, assumed it wasn't possible. Although it isn't exactly what I had in mind as a child, someone has learned to do it, and did so through incredible effort and from learning from setbacks.
I see many new mediators fall into the fixed mindset, and one early sign of it is their need to control the mediation. A mediator in the fixed mindset gets frustrated over the role-plays in a training and says things like, "a real case would never be like this". They also have difficulty facilitating real mediation sessions and may say something like, "we couldn't get to agreement because these participants were not mediating in good faith". These mediators try to create the perfect environment in which they can feel their efforts will be successful. Typically, they will avoid or dismiss feedback, because if it negative, it means to them that they don't have talent as a mediator, and then why bother trying?
Mediators in the growth mindset learn from every opportunity. They have a difficult mediation and they to try learn how their behavior impacted the session. They learn what they could have done differently. They seek as much feedback as possible because they can only learn from it.
I hope to explore this topic further as my own thoughts continue to develop around it. For now, I'll practice meditating on the couch by the window with all the noise. I'll also make sure I create time for feedback after every mediation session. It's easy to make excuses to avoid it, but we can only learn if we accept we are not perfect.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Ballantine Books.
Sunday, July 8, 2012
Emerging thoughts
So I only update this blog about once a year. I always intend to post more here, but get overwhelmed by life, and Mediate This! gets neglected again. Still, my mind is always on mediation, and in particular, how to improve a mediator's skill set. For a while, I have feared that mediation is something that some people have a natural talent for, and others do not. Thankfully, I have dispelled this myth from my own mind.
I intend to explain my own struggle with this myth, and to explore many other topics on this blog. I have quite a bit more time on my hands these days, and a lot of emerging thoughts about mediation that I'd like to commit to written -typed, actually-text.
One emerging question I have is, how does the field of mediation continue to learn from other fields of science, thought and research without allowing those fields to have any negative impact on mediation as well? I am a student of organizational development, itself a field that pulls from psychology, social psychology, and organizational behavior, and I hope to use theories and research from those fields to advance the field of mediation. My goal is to use theories from those fields in a way that only benefits mediation, therefore demonstrating how to pull from other fields without a negative impact on the field of mediation.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Conditional Statements
CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS: Why Agreements Fail
Conditional Statements: A conditional statement is any solution that is contingent upon some other action or actions.
Ex:
1. James takes out the trash if Sandra does the dishes.
2. Steve pays for the new sink upon completion of repairs to the wall.
Let’s look at the first example. The problem with this statement is that James’ actions depend on Sandra’s actions. If Sandra never does the dishes, James will never take out the trash. In fact, James may use this excuse to justify his inaction. What would happen if Sandra went on vacation for a week? Would James stop taking out the trash just because Sandra wasn’t there to do the dishes? So what happens when Sandra doesn’t take out the trash? James then won’t do the dishes, and the participants are stuck in the same conflict they were when they started.
The problem with the second example is a bit more complex. First, we run into the same problem as in example one. If the wall never gets fixed, Steve will never pay for the new sink. Our instinct might tell us to agree with Steve for sticking to his guns and not providing payment until his wall is fixed. In mediation however, we want to make the payment and the wall repair two separate processes that are not reliant on each other. We’ll explore this a bit further soon.
The other problem with the second example is that it does not express who is repairing the wall. Steve won’t pay until the wall is fixed, but there is not plan in place to fix the wall, nor is anyone accountable for fixing the wall.
So what do we do instead?
Let’s go back to the first example. “James takes out the trash if Sandra does the dishes”. We saw earlier that James could be excused from taking out the trash indefinitely if Sandra isn’t doing the dishes. So, to save our participants from getting caught up in a circle of blame over who isn’t doing what, we rescue them by separating their two suggestions.
“James takes out the trash.”
“Sandra does the dishes.”
Now, James is no longer reliant on Sandra to keep his end of the bargain. Both participants have an action plan for who will do what. James will take out the trash, and Sandra will do the dishes. Just because Sandra stops doing the dishes, it no longer means that James will automatically stop taking out the trash. Similarly, if James stops taking out the trash, it has no effect on whether Sandra continues doing the dishes. The two linked statements pretty guarantees that nothing will change moving forward and that both participants will be stuck in the same cycle of conflict. By separating the two solutions, it increases the likelihood that something will change moving forward. Even a small change in routine or behavior may be enough to propel the participants out of their conflict.
Imagine really complex agreements like, “Tony will call Jerome on August 4th to set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car. On said date Tony will evaluate the damage to the car and give Jerome an estimate of the damage, at which point Jerome will give Tony payment for half the amount of repairs, and the other half will be given once Tony fixes the car.” If Tony never calls Jerome on August 4th, they’ll never set up a date to assess the damage, Jerome will never give Tony money for the repairs and Tony will never fix the car. All that won’t happen just because one phone call didn’t happen. This takes us to our second example.
“Steve pays for the new sink upon completion of repairs to the wall“.
So right off the bat we see that there are two separate actions, and therefore, two separate solutions:
Steve pays for the new sink.
________repairs the wall.
By breaking it down into two separate solutions, neither action is contingent on the other. However, we now have another problem; we don’t know who will repair the wall. Those kinds of details should be teased out during the brainstorming step of the process. Mediators should ask questions to get that information:
Mediator: “So, I heard two ideas there. One was that Steve pays for the new sink, and the other was that the wall gets repaired. So who is going to repair the wall?”
Let the participants do the work and fill in the details of who will do what, but make sure that, as the mediator, you ask the questions.
So let’s look at that really long example again with Tony and Jerome: “Tony will call Jerome on August 4th to set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car. On said date Tony will evaluate the damage to the car and give Jerome an estimate of the damage, at which point Jerome will give Tony payment for half the amount of repairs, and the other half will be given once Tony fixes the car.”
⇒
In a brainstorm this should look like:
-Tony calls Jerome on August 4th.
-Tony and Jerome set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car.
-Tony evaluates the damage to the car.
-Tony gives Jerome an estimate of the damage.
-Jerome gives Tony half of the payment for repairs.
-Tony fixes the car.
-Jerome gives Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.
They still have a solid plan that has a sequential order to it, but it doesn’t limit them to that order, and it provides the flexibility to amend the plan if they need to. To translate this to the language of agreement writing, all that needs to happen is the addition of the word “will”. -Tony will call Jerome on August 4th
-Tony and Jerome will set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car.
-Tony will evaluate the damage to the car.
-Tony will give Jerome an estimate of the damage.
-Jerome will gives Tony half of the payment for repairs.
-Tony will fix the car.
-Jerome will give Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.
Of course, during the brainstorm, the mediators would have also helped the participants get any additional details about when each item will happen. Even without those extra details though, the participants now have a step-by-step action plan that indicates who is going to do what, and that is written in future-tense statements that empower the participants to carry out these actions. No longer will the other half of the payment, “be given once Tony fixes the car”. We didn’t even know who was going to be giving the payment, or for that matter, who would be receiving it. Now we know that, “Jerome will give Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.”
Take-away Lessons:
Conditional Statements restrict the participants from resolving their conflict.
Solutions with multiple actions should be broken down into separate solution statements to provide clarity about who is doing what.
During the brainstorm, solution statement should be in simple and clear terms so that the only additional language that needs to be added to the agreement is the word “will”.
Conditional Statements: A conditional statement is any solution that is contingent upon some other action or actions.
Ex:
1. James takes out the trash if Sandra does the dishes.
2. Steve pays for the new sink upon completion of repairs to the wall.
Let’s look at the first example. The problem with this statement is that James’ actions depend on Sandra’s actions. If Sandra never does the dishes, James will never take out the trash. In fact, James may use this excuse to justify his inaction. What would happen if Sandra went on vacation for a week? Would James stop taking out the trash just because Sandra wasn’t there to do the dishes? So what happens when Sandra doesn’t take out the trash? James then won’t do the dishes, and the participants are stuck in the same conflict they were when they started.
The problem with the second example is a bit more complex. First, we run into the same problem as in example one. If the wall never gets fixed, Steve will never pay for the new sink. Our instinct might tell us to agree with Steve for sticking to his guns and not providing payment until his wall is fixed. In mediation however, we want to make the payment and the wall repair two separate processes that are not reliant on each other. We’ll explore this a bit further soon.
The other problem with the second example is that it does not express who is repairing the wall. Steve won’t pay until the wall is fixed, but there is not plan in place to fix the wall, nor is anyone accountable for fixing the wall.
So what do we do instead?
Let’s go back to the first example. “James takes out the trash if Sandra does the dishes”. We saw earlier that James could be excused from taking out the trash indefinitely if Sandra isn’t doing the dishes. So, to save our participants from getting caught up in a circle of blame over who isn’t doing what, we rescue them by separating their two suggestions.
“James takes out the trash.”
“Sandra does the dishes.”
Now, James is no longer reliant on Sandra to keep his end of the bargain. Both participants have an action plan for who will do what. James will take out the trash, and Sandra will do the dishes. Just because Sandra stops doing the dishes, it no longer means that James will automatically stop taking out the trash. Similarly, if James stops taking out the trash, it has no effect on whether Sandra continues doing the dishes. The two linked statements pretty guarantees that nothing will change moving forward and that both participants will be stuck in the same cycle of conflict. By separating the two solutions, it increases the likelihood that something will change moving forward. Even a small change in routine or behavior may be enough to propel the participants out of their conflict.
Imagine really complex agreements like, “Tony will call Jerome on August 4th to set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car. On said date Tony will evaluate the damage to the car and give Jerome an estimate of the damage, at which point Jerome will give Tony payment for half the amount of repairs, and the other half will be given once Tony fixes the car.” If Tony never calls Jerome on August 4th, they’ll never set up a date to assess the damage, Jerome will never give Tony money for the repairs and Tony will never fix the car. All that won’t happen just because one phone call didn’t happen. This takes us to our second example.
“Steve pays for the new sink upon completion of repairs to the wall“.
So right off the bat we see that there are two separate actions, and therefore, two separate solutions:
Steve pays for the new sink.
________repairs the wall.
By breaking it down into two separate solutions, neither action is contingent on the other. However, we now have another problem; we don’t know who will repair the wall. Those kinds of details should be teased out during the brainstorming step of the process. Mediators should ask questions to get that information:
Mediator: “So, I heard two ideas there. One was that Steve pays for the new sink, and the other was that the wall gets repaired. So who is going to repair the wall?”
Let the participants do the work and fill in the details of who will do what, but make sure that, as the mediator, you ask the questions.
So let’s look at that really long example again with Tony and Jerome: “Tony will call Jerome on August 4th to set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car. On said date Tony will evaluate the damage to the car and give Jerome an estimate of the damage, at which point Jerome will give Tony payment for half the amount of repairs, and the other half will be given once Tony fixes the car.”
⇒
In a brainstorm this should look like:
-Tony calls Jerome on August 4th.
-Tony and Jerome set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car.
-Tony evaluates the damage to the car.
-Tony gives Jerome an estimate of the damage.
-Jerome gives Tony half of the payment for repairs.
-Tony fixes the car.
-Jerome gives Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.
They still have a solid plan that has a sequential order to it, but it doesn’t limit them to that order, and it provides the flexibility to amend the plan if they need to. To translate this to the language of agreement writing, all that needs to happen is the addition of the word “will”. -Tony will call Jerome on August 4th
-Tony and Jerome will set up a time to evaluate the damage of the car.
-Tony will evaluate the damage to the car.
-Tony will give Jerome an estimate of the damage.
-Jerome will gives Tony half of the payment for repairs.
-Tony will fix the car.
-Jerome will give Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.
Of course, during the brainstorm, the mediators would have also helped the participants get any additional details about when each item will happen. Even without those extra details though, the participants now have a step-by-step action plan that indicates who is going to do what, and that is written in future-tense statements that empower the participants to carry out these actions. No longer will the other half of the payment, “be given once Tony fixes the car”. We didn’t even know who was going to be giving the payment, or for that matter, who would be receiving it. Now we know that, “Jerome will give Tony the remaining payment for the repairs.”
Take-away Lessons:
Conditional Statements restrict the participants from resolving their conflict.
Solutions with multiple actions should be broken down into separate solution statements to provide clarity about who is doing what.
During the brainstorm, solution statement should be in simple and clear terms so that the only additional language that needs to be added to the agreement is the word “will”.
Giving and Receiving Feedback
Giving and Receiving Feedback: the Do’s and Don’ts
Giving feedback is not always easy. We get so focused on what is going on in the mediation that we forget to take note of our plusses and deltas. As mediators though, getting and giving feedback is an important part of our skill development. It may be hard to select certain plusses and deltas, but we must remember to always do this. There is no such thing as a perfect mediator and every mediator has a style and technique that can be improved upon. It's important to recognize what mediators are doing well (plusses), and to identify areas for improvement (deltas).
So, how do we give effective feedback? Plusses should always be given first. One mediator will give themselves plusses, and then their co-mediator will give them plusses. By giving ourselves plusses first, it allows us to congratulate ourselves and highlight what skills we've developed and what we're comfortable with. Then that same mediator will give themselves deltas, and then their co-mediator will give themselves deltas. This allows us to identify what we need to work on and to outline a plan for that improvement to happen. It's important for us as mediators to recognize where we need improvement. We're less likely to get defensive about hearing deltas if we have identified them for ourselves.
Feedback formula:
-Mediator 1 gives her or himself Plusses
-Mediator 2 gives Mediator 1’s Plusses
-Mediator 1 gives her or himself Deltas
-Mediator 2 gives Mediator 1’s Deltas
-Mediator 2 gives her or himself Plusses
-Mediator 1 gives Mediator 2’s Plusses
-Mediator 2 gives her or himself Deltas
-Mediator 1 gives Mediator 2’s Deltas
-Observers give Plusses for both Mediators
-Observers give Deltas for both Mediators
If you cannot identify plusses or deltas for yourself, or for your co-mediator, sometimes opening up a conversation about what happened in the mediation can help identify plusses and deltas. If that doesn't work, you can ask your co-mediator or observers what your plusses and deltas were. Just be sure to remain open to hearing and accepting the feedback. Remember, feedback is always RESPECTFUL AND HONEST!!!
So what do you do when someone has a hard time hearing or accepting your respectful and honest feedback?
One thing to remember is that sometimes mediators may have a hard time accepting feedback, especially when it comes from newer mediators. It's important to keep in mind that we are not here to be critical, but we are here to help. If you are a new mediator or observer, you can always remind the mediators that new mediators come straight from training with the most current information, without having developed their own personal mediation style, and that they tend to be very process oriented. So new mediators, while not experienced, tend to provide some of the most on-target feedback.
How you give that feedback is key to how it will be accepted. If a mediator has many deltas, it's best to boil them down to just three. Your role as co-mediator or observer is not to bombard your co-mediator with everything they did wrong, but to give feedback that will help them develop their skills. Find the three things that either seemed the most detrimental to the process, or are areas where you can give suggestions for change. If you know a mediator might have a tough time accepting deltas, you may even find one major delta to give, and then make the other deltas focused on two minor things.
Giving deltas should not be critical, but should open up a conversation. If possible, instead of just giving a delta, say what you noticed and then ask, "what are your thoughts about that", or, "what was your strategy by doing it that way?" That way it gives your co-mediator a chance to defend their action, see the flaw in their action themselves, and it opens up the conversation for other mediators and observers in the room to get involved and give feedback on that particular delta.
Deltas are not just things that someone did wrong. They are areas for change. If you give a delta, always be sure that you are also giving a suggestion for how the mediator might improve in that particular area. A delta should never sound like, "I think it wasn't very helpful the way you reframed the topic of finances before you put it on the topics list". A delta should sound like, "I was concerned that when you reframed finances, you reflected a lot of feelings and values to John, but only reflected feelings to Debbie. It felt unbalanced and didn’t seem neutral. You could have tried to incorporate Debbie's need for inclusion, transparency and security around finances. You did a really good job when you reframed Housework though, because you included feelings and values for both participants, so if you could do that with every topic, I think you'll be on track."
Delta formula:
What you noticed + why it wasn't working/how it affected the process + what could be done to improve it next time=positive change
Also, be sure to ask your co-mediator how you can help them improve that delta.
Finally, deltas should build on what was done well. We give deltas after plusses because we want to build on what we're doing well by improving the things we're not doing as well.
Think of the plusses and deltas conversation as:
"Here is what we're doing really well and why it's working, and (note, it's not but) here is what we are not doing well and why it's not working, and here is what we can do to improve."
Giving feedback is not always easy. We get so focused on what is going on in the mediation that we forget to take note of our plusses and deltas. As mediators though, getting and giving feedback is an important part of our skill development. It may be hard to select certain plusses and deltas, but we must remember to always do this. There is no such thing as a perfect mediator and every mediator has a style and technique that can be improved upon. It's important to recognize what mediators are doing well (plusses), and to identify areas for improvement (deltas).
So, how do we give effective feedback? Plusses should always be given first. One mediator will give themselves plusses, and then their co-mediator will give them plusses. By giving ourselves plusses first, it allows us to congratulate ourselves and highlight what skills we've developed and what we're comfortable with. Then that same mediator will give themselves deltas, and then their co-mediator will give themselves deltas. This allows us to identify what we need to work on and to outline a plan for that improvement to happen. It's important for us as mediators to recognize where we need improvement. We're less likely to get defensive about hearing deltas if we have identified them for ourselves.
Feedback formula:
-Mediator 1 gives her or himself Plusses
-Mediator 2 gives Mediator 1’s Plusses
-Mediator 1 gives her or himself Deltas
-Mediator 2 gives Mediator 1’s Deltas
-Mediator 2 gives her or himself Plusses
-Mediator 1 gives Mediator 2’s Plusses
-Mediator 2 gives her or himself Deltas
-Mediator 1 gives Mediator 2’s Deltas
-Observers give Plusses for both Mediators
-Observers give Deltas for both Mediators
If you cannot identify plusses or deltas for yourself, or for your co-mediator, sometimes opening up a conversation about what happened in the mediation can help identify plusses and deltas. If that doesn't work, you can ask your co-mediator or observers what your plusses and deltas were. Just be sure to remain open to hearing and accepting the feedback. Remember, feedback is always RESPECTFUL AND HONEST!!!
So what do you do when someone has a hard time hearing or accepting your respectful and honest feedback?
One thing to remember is that sometimes mediators may have a hard time accepting feedback, especially when it comes from newer mediators. It's important to keep in mind that we are not here to be critical, but we are here to help. If you are a new mediator or observer, you can always remind the mediators that new mediators come straight from training with the most current information, without having developed their own personal mediation style, and that they tend to be very process oriented. So new mediators, while not experienced, tend to provide some of the most on-target feedback.
How you give that feedback is key to how it will be accepted. If a mediator has many deltas, it's best to boil them down to just three. Your role as co-mediator or observer is not to bombard your co-mediator with everything they did wrong, but to give feedback that will help them develop their skills. Find the three things that either seemed the most detrimental to the process, or are areas where you can give suggestions for change. If you know a mediator might have a tough time accepting deltas, you may even find one major delta to give, and then make the other deltas focused on two minor things.
Giving deltas should not be critical, but should open up a conversation. If possible, instead of just giving a delta, say what you noticed and then ask, "what are your thoughts about that", or, "what was your strategy by doing it that way?" That way it gives your co-mediator a chance to defend their action, see the flaw in their action themselves, and it opens up the conversation for other mediators and observers in the room to get involved and give feedback on that particular delta.
Deltas are not just things that someone did wrong. They are areas for change. If you give a delta, always be sure that you are also giving a suggestion for how the mediator might improve in that particular area. A delta should never sound like, "I think it wasn't very helpful the way you reframed the topic of finances before you put it on the topics list". A delta should sound like, "I was concerned that when you reframed finances, you reflected a lot of feelings and values to John, but only reflected feelings to Debbie. It felt unbalanced and didn’t seem neutral. You could have tried to incorporate Debbie's need for inclusion, transparency and security around finances. You did a really good job when you reframed Housework though, because you included feelings and values for both participants, so if you could do that with every topic, I think you'll be on track."
Delta formula:
What you noticed + why it wasn't working/how it affected the process + what could be done to improve it next time=positive change
Also, be sure to ask your co-mediator how you can help them improve that delta.
Finally, deltas should build on what was done well. We give deltas after plusses because we want to build on what we're doing well by improving the things we're not doing as well.
Think of the plusses and deltas conversation as:
"Here is what we're doing really well and why it's working, and (note, it's not but) here is what we are not doing well and why it's not working, and here is what we can do to improve."
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Getting to the source of a conflict
So maybe this doesn't need to be explained, but I feel compelled to illustrate just how important it is (to me anyhow) to get to the source of a conflict. I lay out this explanation because it's why I think it's worthwhile and important in mediation to try and get to the deeper issues in a conflict.
Imagine a couple in a relationship and living together. For the sake of convenience and clarity I'm going to use the example of a wife and husband. The wife comes home from her high-paying job and asks the husband to make dinner. The husband gets upset at the request, refuses to make dinner, and tells his wife that it's her turn to make dinner. The argument goes something like this:
WIFE: My turn? I just got home from work, you've been home all day!
HUSBAND: Yeah, but I work from home. It's not like I do nothing all day long.
WIFE: I know, but you're not doing anything right now and I have work to get done before my meeting tomorrow.
HUSBAND: I have school work to get done tonight.
WIFE: Well what have you been doing all day then? Why isn't your school work done already?
HUSBAND: Because there is a lot of it. I didn't finish it all. Why didn't you do your work when you were home all day yesterday?
WIFE: Oh, maybe because I was cleaning the whole damn house. Why didn't you do your school work when you were home yesterday instead of being on the phone all day?
HUSBAND: Oh my God! I was on the phone working on a project with a classmate. Don't you dare accuse me of not doing my work...
So this could go on and on. Notice how when they get upset they begin to blame each other. The husband feels that he uses his time productively and when that is challenged, he turns the tables on his wife who does the same thing. This cycle of blame could go on forever. Now, if this came to mediation, the topics to be resolved would most likely be "Dinner", could possibly include, "Housework and Homework" and maybe even might include, "Phone Calls or Communication".
If we don't dig at all, this is about dinner and deciding whose turn it is to cook dinner tonight. If they took this to court a judge would likely decide who should make dinner. They wouldn't even get to talk about the homework or housework or anything else. They may get to talk about those things in arbitration, but it's likely that their agreement will just reflect the dinner problem. In Transformative mediation they might even get to talk about the other topics and make agreements around them. In Community Mediation though, we dig further through open-ended questions and get beyond what is on the surface. We don't intuit or guess what else there might be, but we ask very general questions and let the participants get to the root cause of the problem.
For the sake of this example, I want to create a fictional, but possible, train of thought for the husband. Let's say the conversation between husband and wife continued, but they were not blaming each other and instead were very compassionate listeners who wanted to get to the ultimate source of the husband's frustration. The following illustrates the layers of conflict leading up to this dispute.
Layer 1. It's your turn to make dinner
Layer 2. I have work to do and don't have time to make dinner.
Layer 3. Well I made dinner twice this week already and all last week and you haven't made dinner once.
Layer 4. It's unfair that I have to make dinner all of the time.
Layer 5. It would be nice if even just once you made dinner.
Layer 6. Maybe you should manage your time better so you have time to make dinner when dinner when you come home and do your work at the office.
Layer 7. You're my wife. I should expect that you would want to make me dinner at least once in a while.
Layer 8. All of my friends' wives make their husbands dinner.
Layer 9. We were at the game this past weekend and they all told me so.
Layer 10. In fact, they gave me a hard time because I do all the cooking.
Layer 11. Their wives cook for them just like my mother cooked for us.
Layer 12. My father would come home and dinner would be on the table.
Layer 13. I know that I don't "come home" but I still work all day.
Layer 14. I get it! My being in school isn't the same as you bringing in all of the income, but it's still important.
Layer 15. I just feel like I'm turning into a housewife. I'm home all day and now I have to do the cooking too.
Layer 16. I want to dedicate all my free time to my school work so when I graduate I'll have straight A's and get a get high-paying job.
Layer 17. It feels really weird with you making all the money and me cooking dinner. I just didn't really see my life being this way.
Layer 18. No, it's not that I'm unhappy, but I just always thought I would be the one making the money in this relationship.
Layer 19. Because that is what I grew up around. My dad worked and my mom stayed home and cooked.
Layer 20. I always felt like my mom wanted to do more with her life, but she ended up getting relegated to the kitchen.
Layer 21. I'm starting to feel like my life is turning out that way, and I still have a lot dreams to accomplish.
WHOA! There we go. It takes a lot to get to that bottom layer. People don't just walk into an argument and scream, "It's your turn to make dinner, because it depresses me that my mother never pursued her dreams, and I'm afraid the same thing is happening to me, and every time I cook dinner for you it's a reminder of all of the things I haven't accomplished in my life I'm scared that I'll never accomplish anything!" Through exploration though, they get to issues like gender equality and inequality, the influence of friends, the model of right and wrong instilled in us by our families. There are all of these other issues that can be understood and possibly resolved if they are explored.
If they come to mediation and only resolve the topic of who is going to make dinner, this argument is going to come up again and again every time dinner needs to be made. They might make a plan that gives them more equality, e.g., "Husband cooks Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Wife cooks Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and on Sundays they order in." They might even address some of the other topics. In Community Mediation though, the mediators ask a lot of questions. We basically try to get the participants to open and we give them a safe place to express and explore their feelings. That way they may be able to peel back the layers of their onion of a conflict and get to what is really causing their emotions. That way, they can better understand themselves and each other, and it can inform how they continue on in this relationship.
If the wife knows that her husband feels unaccomplished, she may do more to encourage him or to allow him time to do school work. I use this example because I am in a relationship that works in this way. My partner and I have conversations that turn into arguments that turn back into conversations that last for hours. We get down to the root causes of our feelings. It's not easy and it takes a lot of time and effort, but it strengthens our bond and our understanding and appreciation of each other. This is what I hope I can offer to mediation participants. My partner and I know we can safely explore those feelings with each other, and so I try to create that safe environment in mediation.
I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this as well.
P.S. I know that my example instills the wife with a lot of responsibility, patience, and understanding. I don't mean to imply that women have to remain unheard while their husbands explore their emotional layers. This process requires reciprocation on both sides.
Imagine a couple in a relationship and living together. For the sake of convenience and clarity I'm going to use the example of a wife and husband. The wife comes home from her high-paying job and asks the husband to make dinner. The husband gets upset at the request, refuses to make dinner, and tells his wife that it's her turn to make dinner. The argument goes something like this:
WIFE: My turn? I just got home from work, you've been home all day!
HUSBAND: Yeah, but I work from home. It's not like I do nothing all day long.
WIFE: I know, but you're not doing anything right now and I have work to get done before my meeting tomorrow.
HUSBAND: I have school work to get done tonight.
WIFE: Well what have you been doing all day then? Why isn't your school work done already?
HUSBAND: Because there is a lot of it. I didn't finish it all. Why didn't you do your work when you were home all day yesterday?
WIFE: Oh, maybe because I was cleaning the whole damn house. Why didn't you do your school work when you were home yesterday instead of being on the phone all day?
HUSBAND: Oh my God! I was on the phone working on a project with a classmate. Don't you dare accuse me of not doing my work...
So this could go on and on. Notice how when they get upset they begin to blame each other. The husband feels that he uses his time productively and when that is challenged, he turns the tables on his wife who does the same thing. This cycle of blame could go on forever. Now, if this came to mediation, the topics to be resolved would most likely be "Dinner", could possibly include, "Housework and Homework" and maybe even might include, "Phone Calls or Communication".
If we don't dig at all, this is about dinner and deciding whose turn it is to cook dinner tonight. If they took this to court a judge would likely decide who should make dinner. They wouldn't even get to talk about the homework or housework or anything else. They may get to talk about those things in arbitration, but it's likely that their agreement will just reflect the dinner problem. In Transformative mediation they might even get to talk about the other topics and make agreements around them. In Community Mediation though, we dig further through open-ended questions and get beyond what is on the surface. We don't intuit or guess what else there might be, but we ask very general questions and let the participants get to the root cause of the problem.
For the sake of this example, I want to create a fictional, but possible, train of thought for the husband. Let's say the conversation between husband and wife continued, but they were not blaming each other and instead were very compassionate listeners who wanted to get to the ultimate source of the husband's frustration. The following illustrates the layers of conflict leading up to this dispute.
Layer 1. It's your turn to make dinner
Layer 2. I have work to do and don't have time to make dinner.
Layer 3. Well I made dinner twice this week already and all last week and you haven't made dinner once.
Layer 4. It's unfair that I have to make dinner all of the time.
Layer 5. It would be nice if even just once you made dinner.
Layer 6. Maybe you should manage your time better so you have time to make dinner when dinner when you come home and do your work at the office.
Layer 7. You're my wife. I should expect that you would want to make me dinner at least once in a while.
Layer 8. All of my friends' wives make their husbands dinner.
Layer 9. We were at the game this past weekend and they all told me so.
Layer 10. In fact, they gave me a hard time because I do all the cooking.
Layer 11. Their wives cook for them just like my mother cooked for us.
Layer 12. My father would come home and dinner would be on the table.
Layer 13. I know that I don't "come home" but I still work all day.
Layer 14. I get it! My being in school isn't the same as you bringing in all of the income, but it's still important.
Layer 15. I just feel like I'm turning into a housewife. I'm home all day and now I have to do the cooking too.
Layer 16. I want to dedicate all my free time to my school work so when I graduate I'll have straight A's and get a get high-paying job.
Layer 17. It feels really weird with you making all the money and me cooking dinner. I just didn't really see my life being this way.
Layer 18. No, it's not that I'm unhappy, but I just always thought I would be the one making the money in this relationship.
Layer 19. Because that is what I grew up around. My dad worked and my mom stayed home and cooked.
Layer 20. I always felt like my mom wanted to do more with her life, but she ended up getting relegated to the kitchen.
Layer 21. I'm starting to feel like my life is turning out that way, and I still have a lot dreams to accomplish.
WHOA! There we go. It takes a lot to get to that bottom layer. People don't just walk into an argument and scream, "It's your turn to make dinner, because it depresses me that my mother never pursued her dreams, and I'm afraid the same thing is happening to me, and every time I cook dinner for you it's a reminder of all of the things I haven't accomplished in my life I'm scared that I'll never accomplish anything!" Through exploration though, they get to issues like gender equality and inequality, the influence of friends, the model of right and wrong instilled in us by our families. There are all of these other issues that can be understood and possibly resolved if they are explored.
If they come to mediation and only resolve the topic of who is going to make dinner, this argument is going to come up again and again every time dinner needs to be made. They might make a plan that gives them more equality, e.g., "Husband cooks Monday, Wednesday, Friday. Wife cooks Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, and on Sundays they order in." They might even address some of the other topics. In Community Mediation though, the mediators ask a lot of questions. We basically try to get the participants to open and we give them a safe place to express and explore their feelings. That way they may be able to peel back the layers of their onion of a conflict and get to what is really causing their emotions. That way, they can better understand themselves and each other, and it can inform how they continue on in this relationship.
If the wife knows that her husband feels unaccomplished, she may do more to encourage him or to allow him time to do school work. I use this example because I am in a relationship that works in this way. My partner and I have conversations that turn into arguments that turn back into conversations that last for hours. We get down to the root causes of our feelings. It's not easy and it takes a lot of time and effort, but it strengthens our bond and our understanding and appreciation of each other. This is what I hope I can offer to mediation participants. My partner and I know we can safely explore those feelings with each other, and so I try to create that safe environment in mediation.
I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts on this as well.
P.S. I know that my example instills the wife with a lot of responsibility, patience, and understanding. I don't mean to imply that women have to remain unheard while their husbands explore their emotional layers. This process requires reciprocation on both sides.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)