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”.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
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."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)