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.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Community Mediation
The other day I posted my own garbled idea of what the different models of mediation are. I was trained in what was then called the Facilitative model. I've been helping train other mediators in that model for several years now, and although the training hasn't changed dramatically, it is now referred to as the Community Mediation model. The name change was because it is sort of a hybrid of the Facilitative and Tranformative models. Here are the important tenets of the Community Mediation Model in no particular order:
-There are no guidelines restricting or directing participants' behavior.
-The mediators do not make any suggestions, give advice or offer suggestions.
-The mediators do not evaluate the participants' solutions.
-A five step process is used to direct the flow of the conversation. That means that if a participant comes up with a potential solution in step 2, the mediators will indicate that they've heard the solution, reflect any feelings they also heard around it, and then let the participants know that potential solutions will be identified in step 4.
-Mediators ask open-ended questions to uncover the heart of the conflict. The idea is to help the participants resolve the root causes of the conflict, and not just what might be happening in the moment.
A lot of the conversation around the different models centers around the Transformative model and why it may or may not be better than the others. I like the Community Mediation Model. It's familiar to me and it's really the only model that I have any formal training in, so of course I'm more likely to favor it over all others. However, the arguments for Transformative mediation make me both curious to know more and a little turned off. There are two points that I think are worth exploring.
One is that in Transformative mediation ideas and potential solutions get explored as soon as they arise. This is what I want to know more about and I will save that for a later discussion. The point that I want to address now is how deep into the conflict the Transformative and Community Mediation models go or don't go.
Let's look at an example to illustrate the different models:
Lisa and Tiarra had been friends for years and eventually became roommates. After a falling out, Tiarra asked Lisa to move out, which Lisa did, prematurely ending the lease. Tiarra was stuck having to pay the full share of the rent for the rest of the lease and is now in mediation to recover the remaining amount that she thinks Lisa owes. Their friendship has completely dissolved with the two women treating each other like bitter rivals. During the mediation most of the conversation is focused on the money, but Lisa periodically brings up details from the past, such as, "You were such a horrible roommate. You never cleaned a thing!", and "If you an your boyfriend hadn't been making so much noise, I wouldn't have gotten upset in the first place." Although Lisa peppered the conversation with these comments, she would then follow up with statements like, "Whatever, it's not even worth bringing that up. Let's just talk about the rent, because I don't owe you anything".
To the best of my knowledge, in Transformative mediation those past details don't get explored any further unless the participants bring them up. In Community Mediation, those are the details that the mediators are listening for. They hear topics of housework and volume, and they may conclude that these were potentially the beginnings of the conflict. Therefor they ask about them. "Lisa, it sounds like you felt frustrated by the noise. Tell me more about that?".
That way, it opens up the conversation about what happened, and how everyone was affected by what happened. It lets participants resolve the heart of the conflict and possibly restore the friendship they originally had. If only the topic of rent gets resolved, the two participants are free to go on hating each other and to go their separate ways. It's true that if that is what the participants want, it is their decision. In both models, the mediators will not force or coerce them to make certain decisions, nor will they force them to talk about anything they do not want to. At least in Community Mediation, they ask. They dig into the past to see what can be worked out. If the participants don't want to talk about it, the mediators move on. From what I have seen of Transformative mediation, the mediators don't ask. They simply move on and deal strictly with the topic of rent. This could leave the causes of the conflict intact, ready to explode again the next time these two participants interact.
In my next post I will defend why I think the mediators should make the effort to dig deeper, and it will be based on my personal experience. If I'm wrong about Transformative mediation, hopefully some transformative mediators will use this space to set me, and hopefully others, straight.
-There are no guidelines restricting or directing participants' behavior.
-The mediators do not make any suggestions, give advice or offer suggestions.
-The mediators do not evaluate the participants' solutions.
-A five step process is used to direct the flow of the conversation. That means that if a participant comes up with a potential solution in step 2, the mediators will indicate that they've heard the solution, reflect any feelings they also heard around it, and then let the participants know that potential solutions will be identified in step 4.
-Mediators ask open-ended questions to uncover the heart of the conflict. The idea is to help the participants resolve the root causes of the conflict, and not just what might be happening in the moment.
A lot of the conversation around the different models centers around the Transformative model and why it may or may not be better than the others. I like the Community Mediation Model. It's familiar to me and it's really the only model that I have any formal training in, so of course I'm more likely to favor it over all others. However, the arguments for Transformative mediation make me both curious to know more and a little turned off. There are two points that I think are worth exploring.
One is that in Transformative mediation ideas and potential solutions get explored as soon as they arise. This is what I want to know more about and I will save that for a later discussion. The point that I want to address now is how deep into the conflict the Transformative and Community Mediation models go or don't go.
Let's look at an example to illustrate the different models:
Lisa and Tiarra had been friends for years and eventually became roommates. After a falling out, Tiarra asked Lisa to move out, which Lisa did, prematurely ending the lease. Tiarra was stuck having to pay the full share of the rent for the rest of the lease and is now in mediation to recover the remaining amount that she thinks Lisa owes. Their friendship has completely dissolved with the two women treating each other like bitter rivals. During the mediation most of the conversation is focused on the money, but Lisa periodically brings up details from the past, such as, "You were such a horrible roommate. You never cleaned a thing!", and "If you an your boyfriend hadn't been making so much noise, I wouldn't have gotten upset in the first place." Although Lisa peppered the conversation with these comments, she would then follow up with statements like, "Whatever, it's not even worth bringing that up. Let's just talk about the rent, because I don't owe you anything".
To the best of my knowledge, in Transformative mediation those past details don't get explored any further unless the participants bring them up. In Community Mediation, those are the details that the mediators are listening for. They hear topics of housework and volume, and they may conclude that these were potentially the beginnings of the conflict. Therefor they ask about them. "Lisa, it sounds like you felt frustrated by the noise. Tell me more about that?".
That way, it opens up the conversation about what happened, and how everyone was affected by what happened. It lets participants resolve the heart of the conflict and possibly restore the friendship they originally had. If only the topic of rent gets resolved, the two participants are free to go on hating each other and to go their separate ways. It's true that if that is what the participants want, it is their decision. In both models, the mediators will not force or coerce them to make certain decisions, nor will they force them to talk about anything they do not want to. At least in Community Mediation, they ask. They dig into the past to see what can be worked out. If the participants don't want to talk about it, the mediators move on. From what I have seen of Transformative mediation, the mediators don't ask. They simply move on and deal strictly with the topic of rent. This could leave the causes of the conflict intact, ready to explode again the next time these two participants interact.
In my next post I will defend why I think the mediators should make the effort to dig deeper, and it will be based on my personal experience. If I'm wrong about Transformative mediation, hopefully some transformative mediators will use this space to set me, and hopefully others, straight.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
THE MODELS OF MEDIATION
So I've been thinking a bit about the three models of mediation and what mediation will look like as it continues to develop. I have an admittedly limited knowledge of the three models, but for the sake of discussion, I'd like to elaborate on my understanding of the three models because it will shed some light on my defense of one model over the others, or at least may expose the pros and cons of each model.
To the best of my knowledge, there are three main models of mediation: Evaluative, Facilitative and Transformative. Here is what I understand the three models to mean in the most basic of terms without my own opinions thrown in:
Evaluative mediation follows a set process, sets guidelines for participants' behavior in mediation and helps the participants evaluate potential solutions.
Facilitative mediation follows a set process, may or may not set guidelines and does not evaluate potential solutions.
Transformative mediation has a loose structure and does not necessarily follow a process. It sets no guidelines for participants' behavior and does not evaluate potential solutions.
Because my own exposure to each model may be limited, I can't properly explain the advantages and disadvantages of each model, but here is my understanding of the arguments for and against each model:
Evaluative mediation may rely on expertise or experience of the mediators, expertise that the participants may not have, to guide the participants towards useful solutions. Because this model sets guidelines on behavior, it encourages the participants to be respectful of each other and the process. On the other hand, it may be presumptuous of the mediators to assume that their own advice is going to be useful, and by offering their own opinions, it limits the creativity of the participants. Further, by setting guidelines on participants' behavior, it fails to honor the participants' usual style of communication as useful to the resolution of the conflict and may cause participants to shut down, or cause them to prevent from expressing themselves.
Facilitative mediation is about opening up dialogue between the participants and lets them talk about how they have been effected by the conflict before examining solutions. Participants can come up with their own solutions, supposedly increasing the likelihood that they will stick to their agreements. Facilitative mediation may still be constraining to participants because it relegates their solutions to the appropriate step in the process. Participants that come to the table focused mainly on solutions may be frustrated by a process that asks them to explore the entire history of the conflict.
Transformative mediation honors the participants by letting them guide the process. In the transformative model, the participants themselves have the most control over when solutions are examined and how they are evaluated. Transformative mediation may prevent some conflicts from being resolved because it does not explore the entire history of the conflict unless the participants reveal that information unprompted.
Again, I may be completely off base, but this is my understanding of the three models. I'd love to hear from other mediators that may know more about the differences.
To the best of my knowledge, there are three main models of mediation: Evaluative, Facilitative and Transformative. Here is what I understand the three models to mean in the most basic of terms without my own opinions thrown in:
Evaluative mediation follows a set process, sets guidelines for participants' behavior in mediation and helps the participants evaluate potential solutions.
Facilitative mediation follows a set process, may or may not set guidelines and does not evaluate potential solutions.
Transformative mediation has a loose structure and does not necessarily follow a process. It sets no guidelines for participants' behavior and does not evaluate potential solutions.
Because my own exposure to each model may be limited, I can't properly explain the advantages and disadvantages of each model, but here is my understanding of the arguments for and against each model:
Evaluative mediation may rely on expertise or experience of the mediators, expertise that the participants may not have, to guide the participants towards useful solutions. Because this model sets guidelines on behavior, it encourages the participants to be respectful of each other and the process. On the other hand, it may be presumptuous of the mediators to assume that their own advice is going to be useful, and by offering their own opinions, it limits the creativity of the participants. Further, by setting guidelines on participants' behavior, it fails to honor the participants' usual style of communication as useful to the resolution of the conflict and may cause participants to shut down, or cause them to prevent from expressing themselves.
Facilitative mediation is about opening up dialogue between the participants and lets them talk about how they have been effected by the conflict before examining solutions. Participants can come up with their own solutions, supposedly increasing the likelihood that they will stick to their agreements. Facilitative mediation may still be constraining to participants because it relegates their solutions to the appropriate step in the process. Participants that come to the table focused mainly on solutions may be frustrated by a process that asks them to explore the entire history of the conflict.
Transformative mediation honors the participants by letting them guide the process. In the transformative model, the participants themselves have the most control over when solutions are examined and how they are evaluated. Transformative mediation may prevent some conflicts from being resolved because it does not explore the entire history of the conflict unless the participants reveal that information unprompted.
Again, I may be completely off base, but this is my understanding of the three models. I'd love to hear from other mediators that may know more about the differences.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Why MEDIATE THIS!?
You may be wondering why this blog is necessary. For the most part, it is not. I need this blog, and others may find a use or a need for it as well, but for all I know, I am the only person that currently needs this blog.
I need this blog to express my thoughts about mediation. There is a lot of information about mediation floating around the Internet, and there are many great professional mediators and mediation trainers unloading their thoughts about mediation online. It's too much for me to follow and process without having my own place to unload my own thoughts. So that's what this blog is; a place for me to sort out my thoughts and opinions about mediation. Hopefully, other mediators, or anyone interested in mediation will find this to be a useful space to sort out their own thoughts.
This space is intended to uphold the tenets of mediation while opening up the field of mediation to be dissected, scrutinized and evaluated. Therefore, while the ugly side of mediation may be completely exposed here, this should be a place where opinions should be expressed freely and comfortably. Users of this blog should be supportive, respectful and honest.
Future topics to be explored -in addition to my random thoughts- include the different methods and styles of mediation, voluntary/community vs. professional mediation, mediation certification, the pros and cons of free mediation, mediation and its relation to the legal system, and supporting mediator learning.
I need this blog to express my thoughts about mediation. There is a lot of information about mediation floating around the Internet, and there are many great professional mediators and mediation trainers unloading their thoughts about mediation online. It's too much for me to follow and process without having my own place to unload my own thoughts. So that's what this blog is; a place for me to sort out my thoughts and opinions about mediation. Hopefully, other mediators, or anyone interested in mediation will find this to be a useful space to sort out their own thoughts.
This space is intended to uphold the tenets of mediation while opening up the field of mediation to be dissected, scrutinized and evaluated. Therefore, while the ugly side of mediation may be completely exposed here, this should be a place where opinions should be expressed freely and comfortably. Users of this blog should be supportive, respectful and honest.
Future topics to be explored -in addition to my random thoughts- include the different methods and styles of mediation, voluntary/community vs. professional mediation, mediation certification, the pros and cons of free mediation, mediation and its relation to the legal system, and supporting mediator learning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)