Articles

Dynamic Listening and Strategic Questioning:

    

Honing the Mediator Tool Box

     

by Ann McBroom

King County Inter-Local Conflict Resolution Group

 

What we ask, how we ask it, the spirit in which we ask, and the form and sequence of our questions – all invite some responses and discourage others. As mediators, what we do and how we do it influences the experience of the parties. Our questions focus attention on what people consider about the situation. Therefore we must be as intentional as possible in our inquiry.

 “Our questions are fateful.” (David Cooperrider). The very act of asking a question influences people. Language invited through our questions, through either internal reflections or oral response, alters the responder’s thinking. The act of asking and answering questions has the power to shape meanings and expand or contract the potential for future action. Questions have power.

Strategic questions are questions with purpose and impact. These questions invite visions of a preferred future and strategic thinking about how to get there. The strategic questioner creates an environment for people to find the solutions within themselves. In order to form the question that will open thinking, the questioner must listen deeply to the other person. This dynamic listening involves immersing oneself in the context in which the other experiences the situation, paying close attention to the clues hidden in the story.

How do you do this? Your ears wander. They search out meaning, resolve, motion and need. You listen for obstacles to caring, blocks to action. You listen for what motivates and compels the person to action. You listen for how the person’s views change and how they think change happens. You listen for the path to change that the person sees, no matter how dimly. You listen for dreams and goals planted deeply in the person’s heart. You focus your attention on the other as if lives depend on it.

It is not your job to figure out what a person should do and then somehow get him to do it. You stay out of the way. Your opinion does not serve. You believe the knowledge to resolve is alive within the person and the person knows intimately the problems they face. The point of your listening and your questioning is to help their new thinking emerge.

The strategic questioning process creates opportunities for focus, observation and analysis for both you and especially for the parties. It starts with developing an understanding of the problem in all of its complexities by everyone in the room. Examples of questions that might foster this understanding include: “What disturbs you about the situation?” “What are the effects that you have noticed as a result of this situation?” “What are the reasons for this situation?” Keep in mind, these are categories of questions. In order to form a question that will resonate with the other person, it must be posed in their context -- the context that you have come to understand because of your deep listening.

Here is an example given by Ms. Peavey. She was asked by an Indian friend to come to India to help with the clean up of the Ganges. Knowing nothing about sewage, with no experience in cleaning up rivers, she began her questioning by inviting observation and listening for context. Her early questions were designed to understand how people saw the situation themselves. “What do you see when you look at the river?” “How do you explain the situation with the river to your children?” “How do you feel about the condition of the river?” These valueneutral questions allowed her to under- stand the cultural wiring associated the river.

Once she understood the context, Peavey was able to shift her own thinking so that it aligned more closely the people she was working with. learned that if she focused on it would be as if she were blaming sacred river for its polluted state. understood the context: the river holy, the people are not taking her. She thought less about “about the pollution” and more “how to best care for the river.”

Her next questions helped people about how change occurs in their context. What are the stories strategy embedded in the lives people? Her action questions people in developing new strategies relied on their knowledge and experience. She asked questions like, are you preparing your children for the river?” Creative solutions emerged that were unique to the involved. The results motivated community to take steps to a preferred future.

People need to come up with answers. Questions are a catalyst the process. Really great questions may not have an answer right very powerful question rattles mind for days or weeks. The planted and the answers grow! 

 

Attention Gives Life…What We Focus on Grows…. -David Cooperrider   

---

Diversity Outreach and the Culture of Community Mediation

   

by Andrew Kidde

Bellevue Neighborhood Mediation Program

    

The Bellevue Neighborhood Mediation Program has begun a concerted outreach to Bellevue’s diverse communities.  This effort has many facets: translating materials into key languages, recruiting volunteers from diverse backgrounds, giving presentations to organizations with immigrant populations, and identifying volunteers as “cultural ambassadors.”   It’s an exciting and energizing project … all the same, it’s a good time to do some soul searching and ask ourselves: what is our own culture; how does it drive our practice; and how well does our practice serve the diverse communities of Bellevue?  

Community mediation in the US has been primarily developed by white, middle class, educated citizens, and while the movement has become increasingly diverse, our practice still reflects the culture of those who first developed it.  We are individualists, prizing the self determination of our clients.  We believe that people are created equal, and readily will mediate cases between teens and parents, young and old, wealthy and indigent.  We believe that humans can control their fate, that those in conflict should think creatively and be open to new ideas.  We laud cooperativeness and collaboration, and view competitive negotiation as an obstacle that must be managed.   We believe that people say what they mean, and that we can elicit all the important content by asking the right questions.   We take pride in our impartiality, assuming that clients will trust us if they see we are impartial.

  

I believe these basic cultural tendencies have a lot going for them, and further, I believe mediation is a wonderfully flexible dispute resolution method for mediating in many cultural settings and in cross cultural disputes in particular.  At the same time, I know there is nothing universal about our culture, and we must have some humility as we encounter the variety of cultural beliefs in our community.  Specifically we must appreciate that for many of our culturally diverse clients, our assumptions and practices may not be comfortable, or even helpful, in resolving disputes.  

But, let’s start with what works.  Mediation is based on an individualist ethic of self-determination – yet as Julia Gold has written, it also “accommodates collectivist values” more effectively than, for example, litigation.  Community mediation has an “emphasis on relational values” that serves as a balance to the spirit of individualism.   In this way, it can be a very appropriate dispute resolution forum for disputes arising between members of a collectivist culture, such as Mexican-American, and members of an individualist culture, such as Anglo-American.    

Our mediation culture is also based on the belief that people come to mediation ready to say what they mean in explicit and direct language.  In the language of culture theorists, we are “low context” communicators.  “High context” communicators, on the other hand, do not verbalize all, or even most, of what they are trying to communicate – instead much of the message is conveyed indirectly by innuendo, symbols, or the setting of the communication. 

The Chinese, for example, have a high context communication style, while Americans have a low context one.  This communication style difference between Chinese and Americans can easily lead to misunderstanding and conflict.  Americans may become frustrated by their Asian counterparts’ unwillingness to put their cards on the table, seeing this behavior as evasive or crafty.  Chinese, on the other hand, may be offended by their American counterparts’ bluntness and failure to note the importance of the relationship and the broader context of the negotiation.   Mediators using a high context communication style would probably not be effective -- the low context communicator would likely still be left in the dark.   On the other hand, community mediators with their low context communication style can be useful in this context as a kind of translator – helping the Chinese party to be more explicit, and encouraging the American to be less direct and aggressive.  

So the community mediation model clearly has some virtues for working on cross cultural mediation.  However, our model can also be very challenging in cross cultural context.  For example, many cultures are hierarchical, having an expectation that power is distributed unequally across society. In the language of cultural theorists, these cultures have “high power distance.”  Other cultures are more egalitarian, stressing equality and opportunity for everyone.  These cultures are described as having “low power distance.”  The culture of community mediation is generally of low power distance.  In providing our parent teen mediation service, we assume that teens and adults can negotiate as more or less equals – and reflects the low power difference bias of our program.   Yet for families from traditional high power difference cultures, for example Mexico and China, the idea of a parent negotiating with a teenage child seems to upset the natural order of things.  

High power distance cultures with established mediation traditions, such as the Chinese, commonly expect that mediators should be senior, high status individuals who speak authoritatively on the substance of the dispute.   As Honeyman, Goh, and Kelly note, “The educative role is an essential part of Chinese mediation, with the mediators assuming a social duty, instructing the disputants in morally righteous behavior.”  Our community mediation culture, on the other hand, with its expectation of low power distance, leads us to believe that anyone trained in the skills of mediation and experienced in using those skills can mediate, and further that this mediator should refrain from adopting any authoritative tone, except perhaps in process decisions.   

   

Our emphasis on the neutrality of the mediator may be alienating to some collectivist cultures.  Honeyman, Goh, and Kelly, looking at mediations between Australian aboriginals and white Australians, state that the aboriginals “desire a mediator who is connected to their life experience -- even to the degree that a ‘biased’ mediator is seen as quite acceptable, at least as part of the team.”  This connection to the mediator is needed primarily to establish trust, but also importantly because a connected mediator is much more likely to understand the significance of cultural nuances and non-verbal communication.   This preference also obtains in Japan, John Barkai has written, that for the Japanese, “the next best thing to having a mutual friend as a mediator is having a person who knows one of the parties well, even if they do not know the other person at all.” 

In our community mediations we ask disputants to “invent options for mutual gain” (in the classic words of Fischer and Ury) through creative integration of parties’ interests.  This request works well for individuals from cultures similar to the community mediation culture, we have “low uncertainty avoidance,” that is we readily accept change and we prize innovation.  But this request could be quite unsettling for member of a culture with “high uncertainly avoidance,” such as Greek or Japanese culture.  For these individuals, established structure and rules should guide action, and uncertainty should be reduced when possible.  Asking them to be open to new ideas and to brainstorm creative solutions could be awkward at best, and possibly quite threatening.  

As we embark on this project of diversity outreach we need to acknowledge that our typical community mediation practice may not work well in some culture settings.   While there is no easy answer – there are clearly some things we need to do.   First, in convening and conducting mediations we need to be aware of the culturally based expectations of our clients.  In some cases, we can modify our practice to accommodate the needs of parties from diverse cultures.  In other cases accommodation may not be possible, if doing so would require abandoning a key moral tenet.  In any case, as we move forward with our outreach to Bellevue’s diverse communities, we will do so with a commitment to learn as much as teach, and to be flexible in meeting the needs of our community when and how we can.

Barkai, John.  What's a Cross-Cultural Mediator to Do? A Low-Context Solution for a High-Context Problem, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 10, p. 43 (2008).

Gold, Julia Ann.  ADR Through a Cultural Lens How Cultural Values Shape Our Disputing Processes, J. Disp. Resol. vol. 2, p. 289 (2005).

Honeyman, C, Goh BC & Kelly, L. Skill is not enough: seeking connectedness and authority in mediation, Negotiation Journal, vol. 20, no. 4, p. 489. (2004).

---

 “She’s Lying…”

Notes from ILCRG Peer Consultation Group

By Ann McBroom

King County Interlocal Conflict Resolution Group

 

About 20 people attended our most recent Peer Consultation to explore strategies about mediating when parties have wildly divergent memories of past events. Perhaps one of the parties is intentionally describing the situation in a way that she knows is untrue. What are the potential motivations? In the work place, employees are usually trying to protect themselves or another co-worker. More often than not, both parties believe with a great deal of certainty that their perception of the past is correct – and – they want validation from the mediator. Why does this happen?

 

The brain is amazingly complex. A number of fascinating books offer some insights into the way memory, particularly memories of events, work. We like to think that our thoughts evolve in the rational part of the brain (the neo-cortex) and have some degree of objectivity. The studies show that the feeling of knowing, the sense of certainty,actually originates in the emotional part of the brain (the limbic system). The limbic system also stores memory. When an event occurs, especially a traumatic or emotional event, much of the processing occurs in the limbic system. Neurons connect to otherneurons, new sensory input is compared to past input, and only after a great deal of unconscious processing is the input filtered into consciousness. The limbic system willfilter out and store information that is not perceived as immediately relevant to the conscious mind.

 

In addition, the brain is hardwired to look for patterns and predictability. In the limbic system, when a prediction is accurate, a tiny bit of dopamine is transmitted to the reward center in the brain. Wow! It feels good! So, in a sense, the brain is constantly searching for certainty.

 

So what can mediators do when faced with the certainty that the parties bring to the table? First of all, we must manage our own filters, both conscious and unconscious,and remember that it is not our place to determine whose account is more accurate or plausible. We have the same tendency as the parties to want certainty and that tendency may trigger a desire to reduce the ambiguity associated with the two different accounts of the same event. In addition, we must be conscious and intentional in our actions, choosing strategies that either help the parties reconcile their different perceptions or move forward in spite of them. Here are some of the strategies that our mediators tried on during the recent peer consultation:

 

♦ Find some common ground to build on. That may mean finding shared interests, shared understanding of words and phrases, or shared history that is not in dispute.

♦ Conversely, help the parties specify where they disagree and explore the assumptions beneath the disagreement. One table group considered looking for something concrete in the room that the parties disagree on and use it as a jumping off point to talk about how different perceptions are formed and filtered.

♦ Explore the meaning of words, especially language that is hyperbolic. Probe for detail and description in order to help diffuse the strong emotion attached to the narrative. (Words are connected to conscious thought and generated in the neo-cortex, so thorough exploration of word meaning will re-engage the neo-cortex.)

♦ Explore the intent and impact, particularly how past events are impacting the current situation. For example, is the past event affecting the way parties are currently communicating or working together?

♦ Explore circumstances in a way that broadens the memory to include other less volatile memories.

♦ Do all of the above cautiously, and use caucus when challenging a person’s memories because they may be deeply attached to the feeling of certainty that their narrative protects.

 

For some really great reading on how the brain works, try “How We Decide”

by Jonah Lehrer and “On Being Certain” by Robert Burton.

---

Marketing Your Mediation Practice: Who Uses Mediation?
By Sarah Bergdahl and Lars Watson

See the results of the October 2008 Conflict Resolution Day Surveys done by WMA members around the state.

http://washingtonmediation.org/newsletters/Spring2009-MarketingData.pdf

---

The Joy of Impasse: The Neuroscience of ‘Insight’ and Creative Problem Solving
by Robert Benjamin

“Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That’s how the light gets in.”
---Leonard Cohen, “Anthem”

Most novice and experienced conflict mediators alike feel themselves viscerally tighten in the face of an impending impasse. The prospect of the parties in a dispute becoming locked up and unable to reach an agreement raises the ugly specter of failure for the practitioner who purports to offer a better way to manage conflict. A fair amount of time and energy is devoted to studying the barriers and resistance to settlement and analyzing and avoiding impasse. Many would seek to distance themselves from the unpleasantness of a lost mediation with self inoculations such as; “the parties’ are responsible for decisions, not the mediator.” While the words carry a measure of truth, they can still ring hollow, and feel perilously close to an excuse for failure.

If a practitioner does not feel unsettled by impasse and the risk of a conflict being unresolved, he or she may lack sufficient passion and be in the wrong line of work. At the same time, if one is to do this work regularly, as a matter of self preservation and necessity, a practitioner must come to terms with the prospect of impasse as a constant companion that must be acknowledged. The choice is not whether or not such a circumstance will occur, but when, and how the mediator will deal with the situation. For a mediator an impasse is not unlike landing and taking off for an airline pilot: they will always be inherent hazards. Our cultural conditioning when dealing with conflict in general and an impasse in particular, is to view it as a threat to be fought and conquered. We are programmed to solve the problem as quickly as possible. The less common approach is to approach as a constructive and useful juncture in the problem solving process----“a crack where the light can get in.”

Some impasses can be anticipated, others are not predictable and can come out of nowhere when least expected, cropping up over a detail of seemingly little consequence that quickly escalates into becoming a deal breaker. Personality, style, value clashes, scarce resources are obvious sources. External factors, such as, politics, or laws and policies, can also foment an impasse. And, in an increasingly complex world, where “wicked” and intractable economic, health and environmental conflicts, to name but a few, are the rule, the occurrence of impasse is almost a given. Just defining the issues, let alone delineating the available options, is a daunting task. The sheer quantity of “unknown-unknowns,” the heightened risk of unintended consequences regardless of the chosen course of action, the intellectual and emotional energy required, coupled with a lack of resources, can be overwhelming. The risk, uncertainty and threat posed by an impasse, real or imagined, can be immobilizing and easily incite parties to retreat into ideological positions.

One of the most troubling sources of impasse, however, is the mediators’ or negotiators’ self imposed limited thinking and failure of imagination in dealing with the matters at hand. (Benjamin, R.D., 2007) This source of impasse, while arguably more manageable, is often overlooked. How a practitioner chooses to structure the process and their style or approach to problem solving can limit or expand how creatively and effectively the parties are encouraged to think about the problem and alternatives. More times than I would care to admit, I have gotten in my own way.

My training and inclination was to think of an impasse as an aberration and difficulty to be fixed or cured. Some years ago I was lucky enough to have one of those all too rare moments of insight that suggested a different approach. A business dispute, the nature of which is relatively familiar to many conflict mediators, was a beginning point for my chastening.

After more than four hours of working with two business partners, engaged in seemingly useless wrangling, they were clearly stalemated and we were all more than a little frustrated. Countless options has been considered and rejected as to how one partner might be able to maintain the cash flow necessary to keep the business operational in the face of the other partners desire to retire because of the onset of an unexpected serious illness. He desperately needed to retrieve his equity and capital investment in the firm to financially survive. All efforts to devise a workable pay out scheme withered against a profit margin that was thin in the best of times. Discussions were all the more emotionally heated because of the partners cross allegations betrayal and the dissipation of assets. Such disputes as this are seldom just a question of money; just focusing on the business aspects would not work. Both of the parties was convinced the other had acted in bad faith, and was unreasonable and untrustworthy. Neither saw any alternative except to go to court and have a judge decide in a partition action.

Despite being the so called ‘objective’ third party, it was my necessarily unstated conviction that both of them were being inflexible and silly to a fault. However, all my efforts to use reason, to gently, and not so gently, remind, chide and persuade them that no cost-benefit analysis supported their apparent decision to go to court, were met with only faint nods and the quick return to argument. Thoroughly frustrated and out of ideas about how to proceed, I stopped the session.

As they proceeded to gather their papers, my parting instructions were to go home, not talk to each other or even think about this mess until the next meeting. I faintheartedly tentatively scheduled that time, with little confidence it would happen. Personally, I was so exhausted towards the end of the session, that I remember having to fake even caring if this matter settled. Only out of sheer professional discipline was I able to pretend to be optimistic that we could reach an agreement. I could only hope my act was good enough to be believable.

To my surprise, they came back the following week. Out of the blue, one of the partners offered a proposal that, while unorthodox, formed the outlines of a workable agreement. I had no idea what I had done, if anything, for the shift to occur. What I am sure about is that whatever happened, it did so by chance, not by any intentional plan or design of mine. Since then, I have used the, “work hard-get frustrated-stop the session” technique, with some degree of success, to manage difficult circumstances and impasses.

I had suspicions about why the technique worked, but tended to keep quiet about the rationale. The explanation goes against my professional training and education and is counter-intuitive. On the few instances I did present it to others, the reaction from others has frequently been halting, if not outright antagonistic. As many professionals, I stumbled around for many years in the belief that effective problem solving was a strictly a rational affair, where one must think their way out of a problem. As a “neutral” mediator, I was supposed to manifest reason and calm, and certainly never display frustration. In the prevailing view, the mediator is the appointed problem solver and the occasion of an impasse, threatened not only the parties but my reputation. If early forays into the use of reasoned discussion did not work to convince people at odds or their errors in thinking, then clearly more logic and reason were called for. I had to be more methodical in developing and charting every option and doing a cost-benefit analysis of each. 

Rational problem solving is an article of faith of our Western ‘techno rational’ culture, and not surprisingly, a core operating premise of the prevailing models of conflict mediation. Every culture has myths: stories of significance that people use make sense of the world around them. A myth is not a lie, but neither is it the truth. One of our most prevalent is the Myth of Rationality, the belief that there is always a best answer to every problem and that answer is discoverable by rational thinking and analysis. (Benjamin, R.D., 2003)

My approach to the business dispute was anything but rational in the conventional sense. What was clear in the moment was that while rational problem solving can be helpful sometimes, it is not sufficient in this matter at this time. In the face of impasse, logic may be the least effective means of convincing anyone of anything. To continue to assume more reason will work when using some has not worked, is simply unreasonable; only a ‘rational fool’ would continue on that course.

Managing an impasse rationally requires accepting the seemingly non rational premise that it was about less thinking, not more. Paradoxically, giving frustrated parties the permission to stop thinking about a problem offered an essential release from the duty to find the right answer, and allowed them the opportunity to ‘see’ the situation differently. Ironically, the insight that came to me out of frustration also happened for the parties out of their frustration in the business dispute I described.

While not about directly about conflict mediation, a compelling article in The New Yorker, “The Eureka Hunt: Why do good ideas come to us when they do?” by Jonah Lehrer, offers a more complete, coherent and rational explanation for this indirect and ‘irrational’ dynamic drawn from current studies in neuroscience. The implications are of critical importance for negotiators and mediators, given that the core of their work is in appreciating and understanding how people make decisions and solve problems.

If the premises are accepted as credible, then many of the prevailing core assumptions and approaches to conflict management practice may need to be reconsidered. Studies of how the brain functions would appear to compel a re-examination of the prevalent rational decision making and problem solving strategies, techniques and skills. At the very least, the notion of what is construed as “rational” may need to be broadened so as to include awareness of the essential intuitive processes that operate conjointly with analytical thinking for creative problem solving to occur. In light of these recent studies, what is clear is that logical and analytical thinking alone are insufficient and may be actually interfere with effective problem solving.

Lehrer opens with the description of a now legendary story that has become a case study for the occurrence of “insight.” The structure parallels my own experience, and I suspect that of many other practitioners as well. In a Montana wild fire in 1949, known as the Mann Gulch Fire, thirteen smoke jumpers died because they did what they were trained to do, and one firefighter survived, because he responded intuitively and did not do what was expected. Trapped at the bottom of a steep walled ravine, the wind suddenly changed direction and a wall of flames sucked up all of the surrounding air. Weighed down with heavy equipment, they tried to outrun the flames could not climb the steep grade fast enough and their escape was cut off. One fire fighter stopped running and, as Lehrer describes it, seemingly risking death, “..in a moment of desperate insight...” lit a match and ignited the ground in front of him and stepped into the shadow of the fire surrounded by a buffer of burned land. He survived by setting what is now known as an ‘escape” or “back” fire.

The Mann Gulch incident offers an opportunity for the careful review and systematic study of the circumstances that gave rise to the “insight experience.” This has offered a platform for the neuroscientific exploration, specifically, what is happening in the human brain. The potential is that insight might be brought about more by design and less by chance. It is noteworthy that Donald Berwick, a highly regarded expert in health care delivery, has similarly made use of the incident in his book, Escape Fire: Designs for the Future of Health Care, another significant wicked problem facing our society.

Many continue to believe that the manifestation of insight is a largely subjective occurrence that is mysterious and idiosyncratic, and unique to the personality of an individual practitioner. It is not thought to be easily susceptible to formal training and many courses and programs relegate the study of insight into the art of practice, not science. Now there is the strong beginning of that science.

Lehrer’s article describes the current work of Mark Jung-Beeman, a cognitive neuroscientist at Northwestern University. Studying the brain, he observed that the left hemisphere appears to be responsible for the functional denoting, or storing the primary meaning of a word or act, while the right brain deals with connotation, the emotional charge of the word or act. The brain, he observes, needs both functions to effectively “see the forest and the trees.” (p. 41). Interestingly, the emergence of insight can be inhibited by a pre-occupation with the denoting function; asking people to explain their thought processes logically. Termed “verbal overshadowing,” insistence on analysis shifts the brain functioning to the left hemisphere, ignoring the more subtle associations coming from the right hemisphere.

The dynamic interplay between the right and left hemisphere that Jung-Beeman observed is usefully relevant to conflict mediators. There is a mental balancing act that goes on as people focus on a problem. First, they need to focus on the details, be as logical as possible, and earnestly struggle with all of the “ifs, ands and buts,” to the point of exhaustion. Here is where fact gathering, cost-benefit analysis and option generation and testing come in.

The struggle sets the stage for the failure that allows the brain to relax enough to see other options. There is an “oh, what the hell---nothing works” response that actually frees the mind and allows for the more remote associations of the right hemisphere of the brain to provide insight (p 43). The release offered by the failure to solve the impasse logically, sets up a relaxation response that allows for insight and the emergence of other options hidden in plain sight. “The drowsy brain is unwound and disorganized, open to all sorts of unconventional ideas.”

Being overly pre-occupied with finding a logical solution, or forcing decisions to be made too quickly, can disrupt the brain relaxation necessary for insight to occur. “(T)his ‘clenched state of mind may inhibit the sort of creative connections that lead to sudden breakthroughs.” (p.43) Most of us recognize that some of the best ideas or thinking come to us in the early morning when we are half asleep, in the shower, or when our minds are wandering. This state of relaxation can be objectively charted and correlates with a steady rhythm of alpha waves emanating from the right hemisphere of the brain. Such activity makes the brain more receptive to new and unusual ideas. (p.43)

While neuroscience has begun to confirm this ‘non-thinking’ strategy that gives rise to insight, the notion is not new in realm of creative problem solving. Edward de Bono distinguished ‘vertical,’ or analytical thinking, from ‘lateral,’ a more free form associative form of thinking, noting that both are necessary for problem solving, more than 30 years ago and his work remains relevant. (Bono, E. de, 1970) And, the Pulitzer Prize winning poet, Howard Nemerov, observed that,

“If you really want to see something,
look at something else.
If you want to say what something is,
inspect something that it isn’t.” (1991).

One of the purposes of art, he notes in his book, On Metaphor, is to “see” reality differently. Conflict management practitioners might benefit from viewing art in order to learn how to view problems from outside the box---to learn how to think laterally. (Benjamin, R. D. 2007).

Many experienced negotiators and mediators have intuitively come upon this Zen-like understanding useful in the management of conflict. They have learned the importance of finding any ruse, excuse or reason to slow down the negotiation process so as to avoid the urge of the parties to ‘cut to the chase.” They have come to recognize that more effective decisions, not as susceptible to ‘buyers remorse,’ are available by not “holding parties feet to the fire” and pressing them to make decisions to quickly. This upside down thinking, the use of relaxation and time, along with logic and analysis, is merely a variety of ‘crazy wisdom.’ Doing what appears to be least rational and counter-intuitive, can sometimes be the most effective way to break out of confining patterns of thinking. (Nisker, W. 1990)

Impasse is not a block to problem solving, but rather a portal. In fact, in some circumstances, encouraging the occurrence of an impasse might be indicated and useful. Allowing, or even catalyzing the parties to move toward the point of frustration that is necessary to set the stage for them to relax enough for insight to emerge, might be done by design. The key is to remember that insight cannot be forced and letting the brain wander is essential. Lehrer relates an amusing story about the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Richard Feynman, who preferred the relaxed atmosphere of a topless bar, and if inspiration struck, scribble equations on cocktail napkins. (p.44) The trick is in balancing logic and analysis with mental ‘walk-abouts.’

For conflict mediators and negotiators, the implications of the neuroscience and the value of impasse should be apparent and several techniques lend themselves to the cultivation of insight and creative problem solving,

1. Consider your personal response to the prospect of an impasse. Think about how it is framed and how you might manage it. Is it a problem or an opportunity? Avoid trying too hard to solve the problem.

2. Avoid artificially imposed time constraints for decision making. Such limits are typically the product of a ‘rational’ model where the operating assumption is that if an issue cannot be settled in a set amount of time, it cannot be settled at all. While there are circumstances where ‘drop dead’ time limits are unavoidable and even useful, time frames typically heighten tensions and can bring about an avoidable impasse. Especially in difficult matters, maintaining an open time frame, allows people a measure of release. Not feeling compelled to make decisions too quickly, allows them to feel ‘safe’ enough to make decisions efficiently. Courts and other institutions that sponsor mediation programs are particularly susceptible to the risk of force fitting the negotiation or mediation process into set time frames.

3. Preemptively identify the prospect of an impasse if there are early and clear signs of it being likely to occur. Normalizing and de-sensitizing the parties to its’ probable occurrence reduces the potential disruptive effect. “We’ll likely get stuck when we start talking about money, no surprise. We’ll get through it.”

4. Move towards, not away from, an impending impasse. Consider encouraging a likely impasse to come about sooner rather than later. This allows for some assessment as to whether or not this is the real thing or just an unfounded fear and minimizes the threat.

5. Use the frustration generated by the impasse to advantage. In some instances, encourage the parties to become frustrated. Authentically encourage the parties to work hard to solve the problem. Gather information, generate, discuss and test options. If they are to become frustrated, do not resist, allow it to happen so that the full effect of “letting go’ can be realized.

6. Slow the process down. The more difficult the issue, the shorter and more frequent the session. Most people tire after approximately an hour and a half to two hours. Learn to recognize when the point of diminishing returns has occurred. The parties should be frustrated and exhausted, but it has to be ‘earned’ frustration.

7. Design “relax” time into the problem solving process. The parties, especially after being frustrated, need to take some amount of time to NOT to think about the problem. This is often missed. However, always set another in person meeting, if at all possible to “check in.” Leaving the process too open risks the parties slipping into a common pattern of avoidance. If the problematic issue continues, discuss other issues.

The prospect of impasse still has a threatening quality to it. Despite the neuroscience, I admit that I am not quite ready to be ‘joyful’ with the experience. However, the neuroscience does at least allow me to become somewhat more friendly with my demons. At the very least, impasse can be thought of as a good opportunity to move forward into creative problem solving. An impasse can be “the crack that lets the light in.”

Resources -Benjamin, Robert D., “Strategies For Managing Impasse,” in Issues in Family and Divorce Mediation, eds. Folberg, J., Milne, A., and Salem, P., Guilford Publications, 2004; also in The Guerrilla Negotiator: The Collected Articles of Robert Benjamin, CD Rom, Mediate.com, 2007.

-Benjamin, Robert. D. “Managing the Natural Energy of Conflict: Tricksters, Mediators and the Constructive Uses of Deception,” in Bringing Peace Into the Room, eds. Bowling, D., and Hoffman, D., Jossey-Bass, Publishers, 2003; also in The Guerrilla Negotiator: The Collected Articles of Robert Benjamin, CD Rom, Mediate.com, 2007.

-Benjamin, R.D., “The Beauty of Conflict: Art Lessons, Lateral Thinking and Creative Problem Solving,” Wisconsin Assoc of Mediators Journal, 2007; also in The Beauty of Conflict: The Visual Arts, Theatre, Film and The Practice of Conflict Management, CD Rom, Mediate.com, 2009.

-Berwick, Donald, Escape Fire: Designs For The Future of Health Care, John Wiley, 2004

- Bono, Edward de, Lateral Thinking, Harper and Row, Publishers, 1970

-Lehrer, Jonah, “The Eureka Hunt: Why do good ideas come to us when they do?” The New Yorker, p.40-45, July 28, 2008.

-Lehrer, Jonah, How We Decide, Houghton Mifflin, 2009

-Nisker, Wes, Crazy Wisdom, Ten Speed Press, 1990

Robert Benjamin biography and additional articles: http://www.mediate.com/people/personprofile.cfm?auid=159

 

---

Getting In Sync:

What Improvisational Theater has to Teach Co-mediators

by Ann McBroom

What do improvisational theater and co-mediation have in common?  Both involve two or more people, both are guided by a structure and a set of principles, both occur “in the moment,”  and both engage around previously unknown subject matter.  Improvisational masters appear to shift seamlessly, blending with and moving between each other with such ease that the production might appear scripted.  But it isn’t – and that’s the beauty!

 

Anyone who has been part of a co-mediation team, or has observed a co-mediator team, knows the potential pitfalls and challenges these teams face.  It can sometimes look as though each mediator is mediating independently, or batting the lead between them like a shuttle cock in a badminton game.  One mediator may dominate, and the other may remain silent.  Or perhaps one mediator may head down a path that neither the co-mediator or the parties can follow.  Even so, the benefits of co-mediation are great:  two minds, two sets of eyes and ears, the balance of gender, race and age.  Seamless co-mediation is possible, and when it happens the results are as amazing as an improvisational jazz concert, when everything goes just right. 

 

As an improviser, you set out to create something with no preconception of how you might do it. Let’s look at the principles and how we can apply those principles in our co-mediation teams.

 

Acceptance.  Improvisational art is based on the idea that no matter what your partner hands you, you will receive it.  When your fellow comic starts out with “You are a big green frog…” you might say “rrrbbt”, and the show would go on.  But if you say, “No, I am not!” or you become speechless, the show stops.  Acceptance means that no matter what comes your way, your response is always “yes…and.”  “Yes, and…” adds to and multiplies the potential.  A “no, but…” response, no matter how subtle, subtracts and divides.  Acceptance does not mean giving in, but rather, surrendering to the idea that there are possibilities waiting to emerge.

 

Mutuality.  Mutuality requires a symbiotic joining together.  While each person maintains their own center, their own core, through give and take they develop a “third thing.”  Imagine two people, each standing straight, breathing deeply, feeling their own center and gravity.  Imagine a ball is placed between them, their bodies holding the ball several feet from the floor.  Imagine one person begins to move, and in order to keep the ball pressed between their bodies and off the floor, the other person must also move.  Each moves and the other follows in a dance of mutuality.  The ball stays between them.  The ball becomes their new core.   This ability to “follow the follower”  occurs through continual give and take, offer and acceptance.

 

Creativity.  Creativity exists in every one of us.  Remember when you were in kindergarten and your teacher asked. “Do I have any artists in the room?”  How many five year–olds raised their hands?  I bet you did!  I know my shining moments as an artist occurred at age five.  Now, let me ask you this…WHAT HAPPENED?  The creativity still lies within you. Viola Spolin, the founder of improvisational theatre, describes creativity as “a greater capacity for experiencing your environment.  Get out of your head, don’t let your pre-planned strategies interfere with your ability to accept the gifts your environment offers. 

 

Risk-taking.  How often do you avoid stepping up, stepping out, taking a risk, because you are afraid of what you don’t know, or because of the unknown outcome?  If you are to practice mutuality, you must be willing to step out, accept, follow the follower.  What if you are left on the stage, alone, holding the bag?  Conflict is always risky, but can lead to amazingly creative outcomes.  When two mediators take risks with each other, you can invite your parties into the creative process.

 

Trust.  How would your relationship with your co-mediator change if you were able to trust that they would not you leave you alone on the stage?  What if you knew that they would follow you where ever you went?  What if you knew that when you followed your co-mediator, they were taking you exactly to the place where you, and the parties, were meant to go?  Trust is the glue that holds improvisation together.  How would the mediation be different if you trusted your own instincts and the instincts of your co-mediator? 

 

Awareness. Awareness is an illusive quality.  Self-awareness requires continual checking in with our own responses.  In improvisation, and in co-mediation, awareness involves all that is in our environment and it’s affect on us as well as others.  It requires breath, the quieting our internal “chatter,” listening deeply, and the surrender to genuine curiosity. 

 

How can you become a better co-mediator?  Practice the principles of improvisation, and practice, practice, practice.  It requires both intention and discipline.  AND…you will love the results!

 

---

Bullies At Work

By Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

Workplace bullying is a growing international problem. It is more than a one-time incident. It is a pattern of behavior between a bully and another worker which can demoralize, isolate and trigger illness in the target of the bully.

What is bullying? Who does it? Is it increasing? What can you do to protect yourself? And what can employers do to promote a safe environment for employees? This short article attempts to answer some of these key questions. My perspective is that of a therapist, mediator, and attorney handling "high conflict" disputes in a variety of settings.

What is Workplace Bullying?

In many ways, it is similar to playground bullying; except that as adults it should no longer be an issue. It is aggressive ehavior that should be personally contained but for some reason is not. Bullying involves more than one incident of aggressive negative behavior. It is a repeated /pattern/ of negative behavior that usually involves a bully with more power or the convincing appearance of more power. Bullying can include acts that are intimidating, humiliating, and isolating and can be verbal or physical, blatant or subtle, active or passive. (Lutgen-Sandvik, 2006.)

The underlying message is that the bully can and will keep engaging in unwanted, negative behavior which you are powerless to stop. This sense of powerlessness grows and the target begins to feel bad about himself or herself, as well as frightened of the bully. Bullying appears to go on in an environment that tolerates or rewards hostile behavior without intervening. The effect on the "target" of bullying can be devastating, and there is substantial research which shows that targets can experience a wide range of related illnesses, from depression and loss of sleep to intestinal disorders and increased risk of heart disease. Productivity drops, teamwork suffers, good employees leave, and employers have increased medical and legal claims. (Yamada, 2008.) Research even shows that workplace bullying has a more negative effect on employees than sexual harassment, perhaps because there are more procedures in place for dealing with sexual harassment nowadays. (Bryner, 2008)

Who Are the Bullies at Work?

From my experience and interdisciplinary training, I strongly believe that bullies at work are High Conflict People ("HCPs") with high conflict personalities. By this I mean that they bring this behavior with them, rather than that they are reacting to an external "issue" or that other people "make" them behave this way. I believe that bullying is part of ?who they are??their life-long pattern of thinking, feeling and behaving. This began before they took this job.  From my observations, there are four personality types most often engaged in workplace bullying. Each of these types is trying to overcome a sense of weakness or fear in themselves, although they are usually not aware of this. (And don't try to point it out to them!) They are unconsciously driven to find and attack what I call their "Targets of Blame,"because this helps them briefly feel less anxious and helpless themselves by /feeling /able to hurt others. Their targets can be anyone. It's not personal. It?s about the bully, not about the target.

 "I'm Very Superior" type: These bullies are stuck trying to prove to themselves and others that they are superior beings. They are really afraid of being seen as inferior, but this fear is not conscious and they will become very defensive if you suggest that they are worried about being seen as inferior. They show frequent disdain and disrespect towards those closest to them. This is mostly verbal, but they may engage in humiliating jokes, tricks or maneuvers to make you look bad (to make them look good, they hope). This is automatic behavior for them. 

"Love-You, Hate-You" type: These bullies often seek revenge for perceived rejections from those they thought were very good friends. Once their fantasy of friendship fades, they retaliate. Even if you did nothing, they don't check out is information; instead they act on it. They may spread rumors and make claims that you are an extremely uncaring or unethical person. If there was a conflict, they want others to believe it?s all your fault. They have a lot of all-or-nothing thinking and they jump to conclusions. "You're with me or you're against me."  They can easily fly into a rage, and sometimes they become violent or stalk their Targets.

 "I Need to Dominate" type: These bullies go beyond just wanting to appear superior. They enjoy hurting other people. They fear being dominated, so they try to find someone, somewhere, who they can dominate. As long as they are harming someone else, they feel less vulnerable. They may say hurtful things, but they often do hurtful things, including stealing from those they are closest to, manipulating you into doing favors and then stabbing you in the back, and being willing to destroy your career for some short-term goal. You may feel that you are being manipulated or in danger. Be skeptical of strange schemes. They are con artists.

 "I Can't Trust Anyone" type: These bullies are highly suspicious of others and may believe that you are taking advantage of them, when you don't even know them personally. They bear a grudge and will attack you before (they think) you are going to attack them. They can spread rumors that you want to harm them, and they believe it themselves. They often create high conflict situations because of their excessive fears of everyone else.

All of these bullies feel that they are victims. They think that you are a danger to them, and so they believe they are justified in attacking you. While it may seem that they are enjoying bullying others, it is not true enjoyment. They enjoy the momentary feeling of being in power. Most people don't need to have power over someone else in a negative way. But for these bullies, that is the only satisfaction in a daily struggle of feeling that they are everyone else's victim. Remember, this feeling is not conscious and you will make it worse if you suggest this to them.

 Are Bullies Increasing at Work?

Over the past couple decades, workplace bullying has begun to receive the same kind of attention that schoolyard bullying has received for years. Perhaps it's the same dynamics, for people whose personality development has been stuck since childhood. Interestingly, research indicates that 16 to 21 percent of employees experience health-endangering bullying and that it?s four times greater than sexual harassment reports. (Yamada, 2008)  These statistics (16 to 21 percent) are very similar to the statistics for personality disorders in society (approximately 15-17%). Since bullies also have enduring patterns of dysfunctional behavior, many of them may have personality disorders. Research on family violence shows a strong correlation between ongoing domestic abuse and personality disorders. (Dutton, 2007)  It's also interesting that the growth of this problem in the workplace seems to have paralleled the increase in personality disorders in our modern society. They can't seem to stop themselves and many organizations seem to tolerate them. With the increase in self-centeredness and decrease in empathy, we can expect to see more of this problem in the future.

What Can You Do?

If you are being bullied, there are several things to consider.

Don't take it personally. Avoid becoming self-critical or becoming isolated. Bullying behavior is about the bully, not the target. There is nothing you could have done to deserve this behavior.

Get help. Talk to someone about the bullying, even if it?s a friend, family member or co-worker. Start where it's easiest to start. You will feel stronger, rather than weaker. Don't try to stop the bully alone. That is a mistake many individuals make and many organizations make.

Find out your organization?s policy about bullying. There may be a resource person to whom you can report the bullying, such as in Human Resources or an Employee Assistance Person. The best policies encourage co-workers and managers to work together to halt bullying behavior and to have the bully removed, if necessary. If you are being bullied by your immediate supervisor and if your organization says you have to talk to that person, look around for someone else to talk to. Such a policy is disfavored and there may be someone else in your organization who you can speak to.

Remember you have choices. Many excellent employees leave organizations which allow bullies to run rampant. You don't have to tolerate a hostile work environment. Knowing you have choices and investigating your options (like researching other job options) will give you strength.

Remember, bullying is not about you. It's about the bully and the bully's personality problems. You don't have to be stuck. Perhaps a change of departments or supervisors may be a solution, so that you don't have to leave the organization. But don't get stuck feeling stuck.

What Can Your Organization Do?

To be honest, the problem is really a cultural problem. The workplace culture must reject bullying, as there is little the individual worker can do. Successful programs aimed at reducing playground bullying focus on the school environment. Likewise, workplace bullying needs to be addressed at the organizational level. Here are a few suggestions for a comprehensive approach:

Policies Against Bullying: Leadership in the workplace must establish clear policies against bullying and for healthy conflict resolution. Clarifying that bullying is unwanted, aggressive, negative behavior of any type will help employees begin to understand where to draw the lines. Clarifying what the consequences are of workplace bullying (and that the organization will enforce them) can go a long way to helping employees feel safe. Employees as a group should know what the policies are, as bullies often distort their understanding of the rules to allow their inappropriate behavior.

Prevention of Bullying: Programs designed to reduce school bullying often have a committee of representatives from different parts of the school community. This committee then develops and disseminates prevention activities. By involving all levels of employees and management, such a team approach has a better chance of changing an organizational culture than simply a top down initiative. However, top management has to strongly support it in a meaningful way, or it will fail.

Staff Training: Training all workers to support each other and set limits on their co-workers may be more effective than just setting company policies. (Bryner, 2008) When all workers feel responsible for the quality of the workplace environment, it seems to calm down aggressive employees. In contrast, when workers feel that "anything goes" or "it's not my problem," there is more likely to be aggressive, bullying behavior. Practicing conflict scenarios and what co-workers can say and do is a particularly useful approach.

Confidential Lines of Communication: Many bullies are in positions of authority over their targets. Therefore, lines of communication which require reporting such problems to one?s immediate superior do not work. There needs to be independent resource people for reporting bullying to the organization and to the leadership.

Counseling: It would help employees and organizations to have a resource person for bullied individuals to use to discuss bullying experiences in confidence. This may help employees and organizations reduce the downward spiral of self-doubt and health problems that bullying often triggers. Such a service could be of assistance to bullies as well, so that the organization may be able to keep some of these employees while assisting them in improving their workplace behavior.

Consequences: There have to be real consequences for bullies, which everyone can see. That way other potential bullies will be more careful to follow the rules and other potential victims will know that they work where they will be protected.

Healthy Workplace Laws: Some states and countries are considering healthy workplace legislation which would establish expectations for employee behavior, and also provide for legal redress for workplace bullying. This should be encouraged, because it must be part of the culture, not up to the individual victim to deal with.

In summary, bullying appears to be a growing problem. Individual targets are usually overwhelmed, especially because bullies appear to have the active or passive support of their employers. Therefore, a comprehensive approach may have the best chance of success for a company or organization attempting to address this problem. Understanding that bullying is primarily an unconscious behavior based on long-term personality patterns may assist organizations and individuals in approaching this more effectively.

Most workplace bullies may be High Conflict People (HCPs) with high conflict personalities. Realizing this helps understand that the problem is:

- A problem of long duration that won't just go away.

- It is a deep and serious problem, rather than a minor problem.

- It is a problem that must be solved at the community level, rather than putting the burden on the individual target to stop the HCP.

Best wishes in handling this problem. Remember, you are not alone and you don't need to take any bullying personally. It is not about you; it's about the bully's pattern of behavior, and everyone's willingness to set limits on it.

-------------------------------------------------------

High Conflict Institute *provides training and consultations regarding High Conflict People (HCPs) to professionals dealing with legal, workplace, educational, and healthcare disputes. Bill Eddy is the President of the High Conflict Institute and the author of "It's All Your Fault!" He is an attorney, mediator, and therapist. Bill has presented seminars to attorneys, judges, mediators, ombudspersons, human resource professionals, employee assistance professionals, managers, and administrators in 25 states, several provinces in Canada, France, and Australia. For more information about High Conflict Institute, our seminars and consultations, or Bill Eddy and his books go to: www.HighConflictInstitute.com <http://highconflictinstitute.com/> or call 602-606-7628.

*References*

Bryner, J., Workplace Bullying 'Epidemic' Worse Than Sexual Harassment, article from the LiveScience website: http://www.livescience.com/health/080308-workplace-bully.html, March 8, 2008.

Dutton, D., The Abusive Personality: Violence and Control in Intimate Relationships (2^nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press, 2007.

Lutgen-Sandvik, P., Tracy, S.J., & Alberts, J.K. Burned by Bullying in the American Workplace, /Journal of Management Studies, /Vol. 44, No. 6, pp. 837-862, September 2007.

Yamada, D., The ?Healthy Workplace Bill,? from the Bullying Institute Website: http://www.bullyinginstitute.org <http://www.bullyinginstitute.org/>, August 2008.

---

Fight, flight or face it?

 

---

top of page