Tales from the Shopping Zone

As the Holiday shopping season moves towards its frenzied, frantic conclusion, here’s a story that shows the value of communication and conflict resolution skills.

My husband was perusing the aisles of one of our local big box retailers. While surveying some electronic gadgets, his attention was drawn to the employees in that section. It seems someone in the “back” had been trying to reach these employees on the floor via a very quiet telephone. When no one answered, the “walkie-talkie” communication became loud and intense. This was soon followed by the person from the back coming to the employees and loudly berating the one for not answering the phone. Explanations seemed only to escalate the anger and one employee was heard to comment on the sanity of the “yeller” and leave. The other employee, at whom the tirade was directed, noted that the conversation should be moved away from the customers. But this didn’t seem to deter the angered employee who continued until running out of steam.

What was going on here? From my husband’s perspective as the “observer” in this conflict situation, the employee had really “lost it” to the point of reacting inappropriately in front of customers, probably loosing some who don’t like that kind of confrontation.

Certainly, there can be many explanations to why this interaction escalated to this point – what we call the interests (reasons) under the position (the anger at not answering the phone). And in the pressure of the holiday shopping season tempers can be short.

But this situation also shows how building anger manifests in the most inappropriate ways and times. And that people tend to loose all self-awareness when this happens. Folks need to find a way to vent that steam in a positive way.

One tool people can use is I-messaging. In I-messaging, a person takes on the responsibility for the communication and the emotions involved in the situation. In an I-message, the speaker identifies the emotion they are feeling as well as the situation that is upsetting and explains why they are upset. Here’s a possible I-message to the above situation: “I am unhappy (emotion) when no one answers my page (situation) because my supervisor was upset with me for not getting the information to her more quickly (reason).”

So before you head to the “yelling zone”, take a deep breath and think about what you are about to do. Try and I-message and see if you can find your way to the peaceful side of your dispute.

Happy shopping and Happy Holidays!

Karen Richards
Interim Executive Director

Mediator Tips
The Circle Chart

Roger Fisher and William Ury, authors of the book Getting to Yes, recommend using a strategy called the Circle Chart as a way of helping people to brainstorm options during the Generating Options phase. They identify four different types of thinking during this phase that generally occur one after another. The first type of thinking about a particular problem, including the factual situation you dislike. The second type of thinking is descriptive analysis, where you sort the problems into categories and tentatively suggest causes. The third type of thinking involves considering, in general terms, what ought to be done. The fourth type of thinking is identifying some specific and feasible suggestions for action. Fisher and Ury suggest asking yourself the following questions when going through each phase:

1. The Problem

• What's wrong?
• What are the current symptoms?
• What are disliked facts contrasted with a preferred situation?

2. Analysis

• Sort symptoms into categories.
• Suggest causes.
• Observe what is lacking.
• Note barriers to resolving the problem.

3. Approaches

• What are possible strategies or prescriptions?
• What are some theoretical cures?
• Generate broad ideas about what might be done.

4. Action Ideas

• What might be done?
• What specific steps might be taken to deal with the problem?

Meditor Tips
Substantive vs. Relationship Issues

To solve disagreements, a good working relationship needs to be established apart from the issues being discussed in the mediation. A poor working relationship with an unfair balance of power tends to lead to one party unnecessarily conceding too much or one side trying to force a concession through threats ("If you really cared for me, you'd do this"). In either case, the problem is unlikely to go away while the bad relationship exists. When considering what is substantive and what is relational, consider the list below.

Substantive Issues
- Terms
- Conditions
- prices
- Dates
- Numbers
- Liabilities

Relationship Issues
- Balance of emotion and reason
- Ease of communication
- Degree of trust and reliability
- Attitude of acceptance or rejection
- Relative emphasis on persuasion or coercion
- Degree of mutual understanding.

To try and build a good relationship by negotiating the relationship. Raise the issue of your concerns about their behavior and discuss it like you would a substantive issue while avoiding judgement. Instead, explain your perceptions and feelings and inquire about theirs; of necessary, come up with some external standards and fair principles to judge behavior. Also, distinguish how you treat them from how they treat you. You should make sure that you are acting fairly even if they aren't; trying to 'teach a lesson' won't solve the problem. A good relationship can be built even if the problem is not solved.

World Demographics

Why is focusing on the underprivileged so important? There are obvious reasons that are continually repeated, such as the right of everyone to have basic human rights. However, it helps to get some perspective from time to time, as the need to pull the underprivileged out of poverty is not only a matter of principle, but a matter of necessity. Consider these facts:

If the world's population could be reduced to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, the demographics would look like this:

• 60 Asians, 12 Europeans, 14 Africans, 8 Latin Americans, 5 US Americans and Canadians
• 49 would be female
• 51 would be male
• 82 would be non-white
• 89 heterosexual
• 11 homosexual
• 33 would be Christian
• 67 would be non-Christian
• 5 would control 32% of the world's entire wealth, and all of them would be US citizens
• 80 would live in substandard housing
• 24 would not have any electricity (and of the 76% that do have electricity, most would only use it for light at night)
• 67 would be unable to read
• Only 1 would have a college education
• 50 would be malnourished and 1 dying of starvation
• 33 would be without access to a safe water supply
• 1 would have HIV
• 1 would be near death
• 2 would be near birth
• 7 would have Internet access

Within the context of these statistics, our work and the work of other non-profits/charities could not be more important. If society is to survive in the next century, we are going to need dialogue between the diverse groups above along with a more equitable distribution of wealth and physical necessities. As you do your volunteer and charity work, remember these statistics. I know I will.

Nathan Eckstrand
Community Outreach Advocate

Mediator Tips
Standards of Fairness

Standards of fairness will often differ among mediatees. Indeed, it is often this conflicting standards that causes conflict. In a mediation of arbitration, one of the steps you can take to help elicit interests is to make clear what each parties standards are. An example of how standards conflict between parties may have to do with what each party considers just in a conflict over custody. The father may say that each parent should have equal custody over the child since each one makes up 50% of the child's parents. However, the mother may say that she deserves more or full custody because she has spent more time with the child, done more to raise the child, and is more experienced in child care. Making clear these standards can be an important step to getting to an agreement.

However, it is not necessary for the parties to reach a 'best' or 'unified' standard of fairness. To focus on this, and pushing the parties to come up with one, is probably a dead end and will make the parties dig their heels in over their position. Instead, knowing standards is a tool that may help the parties reach an agreement. Understanding and discussing standards may help the parties narrow the range of disagreement and allow the parties to find some common ground to build upon. It may also provide an area that the parties will be willing to compromise on.

As with anything in a mediation, don't press a specific set of standards for the parties to follow. You may suggest some standards for them to consider, but make sure that they both embrace those standards before using them in developing solutions.