Dating and the Mediator - Part 3

Sometimes I hate being a mediator. Sometimes I don’t want to make that commitment to being a good listener and communicator. A recent incident that demonstrates this desire is a 5 day discussion I had with my boyfriend over the number of glasses that we were going to have in our kitchen cupboard. He had 24 and then became insistent on 18. I had paired them down to 14 – I figured that was 2 a day for a week – it made sense to me. Oh no, that was crazy talk. How could one person be expected to use only TWO glasses a day? My answer was if someone used more than 14 glasses a week than they just needed to learn to do dishes more (I am currently only there on the weekend, all of this is in preparation for my gradual move in).

I noticed both of digging into our positions, so I asked a good open-ended question to try to expose his interests, “Help me understand why it is important for you to have so many glasses.” Well, he gave me stupid answers like, “I drink more than one type of beverage a day and you can’t mix milk and juice.” To which I responded, “So just rinse out the glass and its like you never put the milk in there.” To which he responded, “Ew! You can’t do that, the glass is contaminated!” So again, I asked, help me understand how that is different than what happens in the dishwasher. Soap, my friends, soap, also the glass may not be contaminated but the beverage is definitely watered down by the droplets of water left on the glass and furthermore, it is just too much work to dry the glass. When asked if his drink has ever tasted watered down he responded, “That is not the point, I know the water is in there.” Of course my reasoning was just, “Look, 18 glasses is excessive.”

He finally got me with the symmetry interest – that 18 glasses would be three rows of six, half a cabinet and symmetrical. Finally! An interest we both share! Its organized and pleasing to the eye, a bridge was being built. I wanted to put in one last bid to see if I could win and offered 15 glasses as a way to meet his symmetry argument – that would be 3 rows of 5. No. It had to be 18. I was just about ready to give in and let him have the 18 until he said, “I am putting my foot down about the 18 glasses.” Oh really? Foot down? I thought to myself well, he has drawn his line in the sand, I can continue to collaborate and try to come to a win-win or I can draw my line. I drew my line. I actually was about to give in until the foot came down. At this point the conflict was no longer about what the right amount glasses was appropriate for our storage capacity, but about who was right and who was wrong. This was no longer a problem solving session – it was a competition.

So our conflict was escalated by us each focusing on positions rather than interests and also by both parties not wanting to move much. Also, our positions were fueled a lot by our different world views. We see this in mediation all the time. Sometimes someone has to give up a lot or completely in order to see a conflict resolved. I had to either outwait the king of stubbornness or let him have what he wanted. This is where I had to look outside the walls of my conflict to evaluate what was really important to me. Was it important to me to win and be “right”? What did I really gain? What did I lose? I had to look at these aspects and decide what I really valued was not having hour long discussions on a daily basis about 18 stupid glasses, or really it was 3 glasses since I was willing to allow 15. I needed to look at the big picture. A lot of times this is what clients in mediation need. They get tunnel vision and can only see one aspect of their problem. There is usually a whole other world outside of that one little bit. I realized this with the glasses and I gave in. He has his three rows of six. They are after all, just glasses.

Mandy Stallings

Chasing the Sunset

It was dusk and I was driving west on I-64 last week. The pink light of sunset was waning in the west. If I could just drive faster, maybe I could catch it – overtake the sunset. But the closer I “got” the faster the light waned and eluded me.

Finding a resolution to a conflict can seem just as elusive as chasing a sunset. People often hold on to their “position” – what they want or think they want – for so long that they end up getting nothing. They end up chasing the sunset. The more they “drive” their position, the more fleeting the resolution becomes.

Mediation helps people to focus on their interests rather than their positions. Interests are the reasons behind the position – the “why”. When people can let go of their position and concentrate on their interest, a resolution to the conflict can become a reality.

Karen Richards

Children of Divorce

I often ask myself why I teach the Saturday morning Co-Parenting class. Not being a morning person, it is difficult for me to get up at 6:30 a.m. I'm not very comfortable talking in front of groups. Yet here I am, on a Saturday morning, waiting for the parents to arrive and wondering if I am going to do a good job for them. Then I remembered a phone call from a young man I have known for years.

He began talking about his growing up time. "It seems everything was normal and we were a happy family," he said. "Then there was a lot of arguing and yelling. It was a very stressful situation and it was not pleasant. I did not know why my parents fought, but it went on for years." He talked about his parents' separations. His father was gone, then home, then gone, then home and finally out of the house for good. And in between, there was tension and arguments that drew him and his siblings into the fight. "No one told us what was going on," he continued. "I just remember there was a lot of anger."

We talked for a few minutes and when the conversation was finished, I told him the same thing I always tell him at the end of our phone calls. "I love you, Thom," I said. "I love you, too, dad," he replied.

I reflected on my son's comments as I watched an Ophra Winfrey special on children of divorce. Parts were very difficult to watch and tears welled up in my eyes. I heard a noise behind me and turned to see two Center staff members dabbing their eyes with tissue. The separation process can be very painful for children and leave them damaged as adults. Co-parenting classes had not been invented when I went through the process. I may have done things much differently if I could have attended a class that talked about communicating with children, not arguing in front of them and not blaming the other parent for all that went wrong in the relationship. Why do I teach the Saturday morning Co-Parenting class? Partly as an atonement for putting my children through the hell of my divorce. But mostly because I have an opportunity to reach out and help parents not make the same mistakes, and to keep their focus on their children, not on themselves or the other parent. From time to time I reach a mom or dad and I know I have made a difference in their lives and the lives of their children. It's still painful, but maybe I have helped them think about what they are doing and how it is affecting their children.

The parents in this class have registered, paid their class fees and have settled in the training room, nervous and not knowing what is going to happen to them. I take a deep breath, gather myself for a moment, walk into the room and stand before them. "Good morning, parents!", I say. Another Saturday morning parenting class begins. And I know why I am here.

Chuck Hardwick

The Pervasiveness of Conflict Resolution

It's been about a month and a half since I left the Center but the topic of conflict and conflict resolution has yet to disappear from my routine. Among the everyday reflective listening skills and I messaging that I do, it has also become a topic of study for me within my philosophy MA program.

The Boston College Philosophy Department holds a graduate conference every year and I am helping to put the next one together. Lo and behold, when I got on the committee, it turns out the topic is "violence and non-violence". While in the conference description we have steered clear of the word "conflict" (since we recognize, as the Center teaches, that not all conflict is bad), our discussions have inevitably come back to the topic itself. What is at the root of conflict? Is conflict the end of all things, or can it be removed from experience? Is philosophical reflection a type of conflict? How, if possible, does conflict shape cultural experiences like sexism and racism?

On a fundamental level, this shows something that the Center tells every trainee that comes through - conflict is everywhere and is something that you will have to deal with constantly, so be prepared. However, I think there is another message to take away. That is, the levels on which conflict exists are more than just our everyday experience (such as dealing with our co-workers). Conflict exists fundamentally on an intellectual and a phenomenological level (the latter being the level consisting of intuitions and unconscious reactions which shape our perceptions of experiences before we conceive them). A complete understanding of conflict should consider what is means on these levels as well. I don't yet have an answer, but I am going to submit a paper for the conference, so hopefully I'll gain a better understanding before the year ends.

Nathan Eckstrand