Seven "C's" of Effective Communication

 In a webinar that I recently attended, the speaker listed "Seven C's of Effective Communication."  I thought it was a good list.  Here they are: 

1. Clear
2. Concise
3. Concrete
4. Correct
5. Coherent
6. Complete
7. Courteous

What do you think?  

Curing vs Healing In Medicine, and In Law

Tonight I found myself reading a blog post in which the author Laura, a person undergoing extensive medical treatment for a serious illness, discusses insight she gained from a workshop for persons undergoing health challenges.  One of the main insights she gained was a new perspective on the difference between "curing" and "healing."* Laura writes:

The Politicization of Environmental Concerns

⁷ “But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds in the sky, and they will tell you; ⁸ or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish in the sea inform you. ⁹ Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?  ¹⁰ In his hand is the life of every creature  and the breath of all mankind.  ¹¹ Does not the ear test words as the tongue tastes food? ¹² Is not wisdom found among the aged? Does not long life bring understanding?

Job Ch. 12

Rumi for Mediators

I was just browsing through some blogs, and ran across an entry by London mediator Amanda Bucklow on her beautiful site and blog, The Mediation Times. 

In a couple of blog entries, Bucklow reminds us that storytelling is an integral part of the mediation process. 

In the blog post entitled “A Story is Like Water – Rumi for Mediators, Parties, and Their Lawyers,” Bucklow refers to the following Rumi poem, which I agree bears repeating: 

A story is like water that you heat for your bath.

It takes messages between the fire and your skin,

It lets them meet, and it cleans you!

Very few can sit down in the middle of the fire itself

like a salamander or Abraham.

We need intermediaries.

 

Jalāl ad-din Rumi (1207 – 1273)

 

Salamander from The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry

Justice Sonya Sotomayor Rules On Sesame Street!

For a great example of judicial problem solving, check out this video of Justice Sotomayor resolving a dispute between Goldilocks and Little Bear.

 

 

This meeting has a nice casual, win-win feel to it.  The parties can even have a little snack while they talk, so it's a lot like mediation.  But there are a few key differences.

For one thing, neither side has a lawyer running the show, getting in the middle and telling them what to do.   Both are feeling like they get a chance to tell their story, without the lawyers interrupting and telling them to stop.   In a real, live courtroom situation, things are not run this way.  Evidence is tightly controlled.   While “your” side is intent on telling your side of the case, the “other” side is intent on keeping out any evidence that doesn’t meet strict standards for admissibility.  In some cases, this can make parties feel as if their entire story has not been heard, even after they have their full day in court. 

If a party really wants the other side to hear what they have to say, mediation is more likely to be the forum in which the issues can be fully aired without being limited by what the lawyers view as being “relevant” and “admissible”. 

Next, Justice Sotomayor demonstrates a key difference between a judicial decision and mediation.  Namely, she makes a decision (in law, called a “ruling”), imposing a “judgment” in the case, in which she tells the parties what to do.   This is very unlike mediation, because a mediator doesn’t impose a solution from the outside in.  In sharp contrast to a judicial “ruling,” a mediator would have kept asking questions and facilitating discussion until the parties came up with their own, voluntary solution. 

It’s possible that a solution agreed upon by the parties would have involved fixing or replacing the chair, but there is a broader range of possibilities that they could have considered and agreed upon.   Perhaps little bear had outgrown his chair, or would have preferred a hammock?  The parties could have discussed that.   Remedies in mediation are not limited to what a court could order.  The parties are free to agree on anything they both feel is fair. 

I note also that the solution imposed by Justice Sotomayor, to fix the chair, was one that is unlikely to be ordered by a U.S. Court.  To order a party to do something in particular, such as to fix an object, is called “specific performance.”  While specific performance is in the range of possible options, there are challenges with imposing this as a matter of law.  Who decides if the chair is fixed well enough?  What if it costs more to fix the chair than the chair is worth?  Because of these and other issues, as a practical matter a court of law is more likely to award money damages:   A court is more likely to order Goldilocks to pay Bear a set amount of money, perhaps the amount of money it would cost to replace the chair, or the amount of money Bear could have sold it for as used furniture.  To allow Goldilocks to repair the chair is a “restorative justice” approach less likely to be ordered by an American court than monetary damages. 

When the parties come up with their own ideas and own solutions, there is also more “buy in” and therefore more likelihood for two things:  (1) that both parties will be happy in the end, and (2) that both parties will follow through with what they agreed to do.   It is faster for a judge to jump to a conclusion and order the parties to do something.  But it’s possible that what is so obvious to everyone else may not be obvious to one of the parties.  Perhaps they need time and space to mull things over, to think through the possibilities, and to consider all options before they would arrive at exactly the same conclusion.  Having the parties think through and take responsibility for their own decisions results in problem solving that is deeper and more authentic, and thus more likely to be accepted by all involved on a deeper, emotional level. 

Perhaps Sesame Street would like to invite a mediator to demonstrate in a similar case? How about “The Three Little Pigs?”   Goldilocks is an EASY case!  Three Little Pigs is a bit more challenging, but it can be done!  (Every case, no matter how intractable it may seem at the outset, has potential to benefit from conflict transformation if only the parties will listen and try to find ways to work things out. )

 

 

Technorati Tags: mediation,restorative,conflict transformation,sotomayor

Lunch Together. Right After Divorce Court?

I went to court today in an attorney role, to help a couple finalize a divorce that had been mediated by someone else.  After the hearing, they went to lunch together. 

LUNCH, TOGETHER?

Under what circumstances in an adversarial divorce, WOULD THAT EVER HAPPEN? 

Here’s to

A HAPPIER ENDING

 

 

Technorati Tags: divorce,mediated divorce,divorce mediation

Thank you for reading the personal blog of Alexandria Skinner. Nothing in this blog should be viewed as attorney-client legal advice. The only way Alexandria Skinner creates an attorney client relationship is by way of a written letter of engagement.

What is Divorce Mediation?

My current favorite way to describe divorce mediation is to compare it with a New York City taxi. 

(image courtesy of wikimedia commons)

Imagine that the road  to divorce is like getting from one side of New York City (married) to the other side of New York City (divorced).  You’re not sure how to get there, so you need some help from someone who does.

One effective way to get there would be to hire a Sherman Tank to guide your way.   You would get from one side of the city to the other.  Along the way, it would be very expensive, it might require a lot of armor that you don’t really need, and there might be some collateral damage.  Better yet, add in a bit of drama.  Make it a race to get to the other side of the city.  Here's how it works:

You and your soon-to-be-ex each hire your own tank and tank driver, with the tank drivers each promising to "fight" for you so that you can "win" in the battle to get to the other side of the city in the best shape.  There will be a judge who is making everyone follow the rules, deciding what who "wins" each phase, and who will ultimately decide the outcome.  To convince the judge of who is the better player, each tank driver engages a squad of marines to assist the tank in getting to the other side.

As things progress, the driver of the tank and the marines might say and do some things, or take some actions, that you, the original player, didn’t really want them to take.  But you would end up with a "score" against your "opponent," you would live with it, pay the fees for the driver and the marines, as well as gas for the tank, and you would end up divorced.  It's effective.  You end up with things "settled," and you are divorced, even though the process may have left one or both former spouses deeply wounded and their children as collateral damage.  In my mind, this is the equivalent of a typical, litigated divorce.  Unless you think consciously and choose a different action, the model of litigation to get from once side of New York to the other is the default mode.

It works like this:   You go see a lawyer (tank driver).  The lawyer puts you in the tank (takes over your case and manages it for you).  They begin the process by filing court papers (put the tank into gear and drive it). They hire experts along the way to assist  you (marines).  To keep from getting run over by tank, the soon-to-be-ex also feels compelled to hire their own tank and tank driver and marines. (This is called "lawyering up."For each move one of you makes, the other must respond.)   The process also puts the entire decision mechanism in the hands of a judge.  In so doing, it takes away the parties' power to choose their own route and outcome.  All these moves and responses also involve a lot of legal work.  For each move that one side's lawyer makes, the other side must make a counter move.  Conflict escalates, things get lost in translation, and it tends to get adversarial whether the parties want it to, or not.

Not too many people are actually thrilled with this process.  Just ask some of your friends who have been divorced.  It's also very expensive.  The initial retainer, whatever amount it may be, often is just a drop in the bucket of what the overall cost turns out to be in the end.

Well, now there’s an alternative.  Maybe what you really need is not a tank, but a taxi!  You could hire a taxi driver who knows the back roads, the obstacles, how to avoid traffic jams.  Could it even be possible for you and your soon-to-be-ex spouse to share a taxi?  If you are both committed to principles of fairness and you are both ready to disentangle, could you jointly work through the issues that are needed to come up with a fair settlement, especially if you had a guide to help you work through the decisions respectfully and using a process that was neutral and fair?   You could still reach your objective, with a lot less cost, less collateral damage, and with matters more in your own control.

The taxi is not the right choice for everyone.  No doubt about it, if the “other side” is adversarial – if they want to go to battle with you  and fight against you – then you will need that tank (the protection and guidance of a formalized litigation process).  And sometimes you will also need the marines as well.  If your soon to be ex is not committed to fairness (including fairness in the process), then you may need to protect yourself, not just with a good and thorough attorney but also by using professionals like forensic accountants, guardians ad litem, court reporters, paralegals, private detectives, etc..  So, part of figuring out whether divorce mediation is appropriate, is to make a good judgment call about whether you can trust your soon-to-be-ex to play by rules of fairness.  If you cannot trust your spouse to adhere to principles of fairness, or they can't trust you, then the protection of the court system will be needed.

It's a bit of a paradox that for divorce mediation to work, both parties have to be able to trust each other to try and be fair and to try and do the right thing.  But, many people are able to do it.  The reward can be a peaceable, respectful and gracious ending that does not require them to become enemies.  When children are involved, the benefit increases because both parents can continue to work together as a team to parent their children. Divorce mediation, as a means for deciding the major issues that need to be decided for divorce, works best when both parties want to get to the same place (a fair resolution) and are willing to work as a team to get there, with help of a neutral mediator to guide the process.

With a mediator acting as guide, the “taxi ride” to resolving the major issues can be streamlined and cost effective.  Then, when the divorcing couple has reached a complete marital settlement agreement (that does not cut corners on the hard conversations), they take that to attorneys who can then help with the final crossing over the Brooklyn Bridge -- an uncontested court action to make it legal and finalize the divorce.

Divorce mediation is not for everyone.  It requires that both parties (1) be committed to principles of fairness, (2) voluntarily produce full financial disclosure, (3) agree to utilize outside experts such as attorneys, accountants, counselors, if that expertise is needed.  In return, the non-adversarial process can save thousands of dollars, produce a fair divorce agreement, and enable parties to maintain dignity, control, and privacy in their personal family decisions.

Would you like to learn more about mediation?  Feel free to explore the web site for my professional practice, Just Mediation, or call 803-414-0185.  

Technorati Tags: divorce mediation,divorce

A Bad Day In Mediation is Better than a Good Day in Litigation, Part II

In my last blog post I wrote some reasons why I quip, “A bad day in mediation is better than a good day in litigation.”  There are exceptions to the rule.  There are cases which should not be resolved through mediation.  But largely, mediation clients report a higher rate of satisfaction with the outcome of their divorce.  A concrete example involves a couple I mediated for some time ago. 

We were just finalizing the last aspects of their divorce agreement.  Their negotiation, over a period of months, had gone relatively smoothly. Both parties were committed to fairness and civility in their divorce process, and both also wanted to keep the impact on their children as small as possible. Each was willing to compromise and help find ways to lessen negative impacts on the other.

On the other hand, their task of parting ways had not been easy, financially or emotionally. Namely, there wasn’t nearly enough money to support two separate households on a middle class standard. Nor did they have significant savings or retirement to share. This meant that both were facing an even more uncertain future.

As they parted ways, even acting as a team and working to try and stretch their budgets, each one was going to come up a bit short of what they really needed. The final negotiations were intense. Finally, after several hours of discussions and revisions, going over details and crunching numbers with a neutral financial analyst, a settlement was reached that everyone felt would be adequate and fair.

This settlement was probably the best, most fair, settlement anyone could have come up with. By enabling this couple to work together, and also using appropriate professional resources, mediation actually enabled this couple to achieve a much better settlement for both of them than would have been possible had they been in adversarial camps.   Eliminating the cost of contested litigation had saved tens of thousands of dollars, and then they were also able to work as a team to employ some tax planning and structure their settlement to maximize benefit overall.  So while the future may have looked sparse, it looked a lot better than the scorched earth they would have been facing if they had litigated rather than mediated.  

All in all, it was a resounding success in terms of result. The agreement was reviewed, signed, and copied.  When I came back in the room, everyone was relieved that it was over. Including me. I was so happy that I made the comment that now we needed to have a glass of champagne.

Wrong thing to say.

I looked up, and one of the parties was blinking rapidly. I noticed a quivering lip and shaking hand. Clearly, losing their marriage, being reduced to a substantially lower standard of living, having to sell their home, and having their entire life narrative turned up on its end and shaken like a salt shaker, was not something they felt should be celebrated with a glass of champagne. This person told me in no uncertain terms that they didn’t think this was any kind of event to celebrate with champagne. And truly, how insensitive of me. I apologized.

Yet on the other hand, even if I said it in the wrong way, at the wrong place, and in the wrong time, there was still much to celebrate.  The parties had succeeded in separating their lives financially and soon-to-be legally. They achieved a property settlement anyone would think was fair. They arranged their finances so both spouses would have what they needed to get by, even if their budgets would be tight. They did not spent $40,000 on litigation. And they were still sitting in the same room together, able to cooperate and have a civil conversation, even agree on continued parenting arrangements and dovetailed estate plans. 

Although this ending was very different from how that spouse had previously dreamed or envisioned their life would be, it was so much better than could be achieved by way of the other divorce alternatives.

A bad day in mediation is, still, better than a good day in litigation!

Perhaps sometime in their future, they might consider raising a toast to the good years they had together, the children they continue to share, and a parting that was less damaging.  Who knows, perhaps someday they’ll even be able to raise a glass not only to their marriage, but also to a divorce process that enabled them to remain friends through the end.   By taking the high road and by seeking win-win solutions, this couple made their world and their future – even their broken world – a better place. That is worth serious applause. It is even worth celebrating.

I can’t take away the fact that divorce is sad and painful.  But it doesn’t have to be as bad as litigation can make it.  My goal is to enable my clients to rewrite the story of their marriage so that it has a happier ending.   A good day for me, is when that happens. Thankfully, and believe it or not, they happen often. That’s why I love my job.

 

Technorati Tags: divorce mediation,mediation

A Bad Day in Mediation is Better Than a Good Day In Litigation! (Part 1)

Occasionally, things happen that remind me I am not perfect.  Today was one of those days.   At the dinner table one night recently, I made some snide comment about some celebrity personality featured in the news.  My daughter gave one of those exasperated replies, “Mom!”  When I looked at her with a questioning look she said, “You’re supposed to be a MEDIATOR!” 
The heart of mediation is to be able to help warring parties see the other side, to instill a bit of communication and compassion.  Obviously, I was not speaking in a way that would facilitate either communication or compassion.   Falling short.
Compassion.  Ah.  The challenge.  The challenge of putting myself into the other person’s experience, to be fully present for them, and to help them communicate and find ways of having their needs understood and met in situations involving conflict.  Fully present means to really listen, to really attend to what someone is saying.  Fully present means to see that party to a conflict as valuable for who they are, to hear and grasp the full meaning of their story and what they are trying to communicate.   For when communication is fully facilitated, most often people begin to understand more what the conflict is really about and then to be able to work together to find ways to meet the most basic needs of each.  Sometimes, it is truly just about numbers or just about compromise.  But most of the time, actually, the parties in my practice actually do engage in what we call “conflict transformation”. 
What is “conflict transformation,” you ask? 
By hearing each other fully, parties are enabled to transform the way they experience and respond to conflict.   When parties to a conflict are able to see and hear each other fully, and even to understand themselves better, they are often able to get beyond the superficial and the posturing, to address much deeper needs.  Often there really is a transformation – an “aha” moment --  that opens the floodgates of understanding, paves the way for change, and makes the idea merely of “compromise” or “settlement” seem trite.  The conflict can then be addressed at a much deeper, and more satisfying, level. 
Yes, the mediator is needed.  People can’t really get beyond it themselves. 
When communication has broken down between parties, when they are mired in their own un-articulated feelings and anxieties and needs. When anger is swirling like a cloud and past hurts invade memories like Trojan horse warriors, the presence of a mediator is essential.  Fully present for each person, I act as a bridge and as a facilitator. 
Yes, sometimes I fall short of that goal, as my daughter reminds me.  But even when it’s not perfect, when I fall short, I still think mediation is better than the alternatives!    
But remember how they say, “a bad day fishing is better than a good day at the office”?  Well, here’s another one:

A bad day in mediation is better than a good day in litigation! 

Have you ever been in litigation? 

To the participants, it’s extremely disempowering.  As soon as the case is turned over to the lawyer, the party loses control.  It’s not the lawyer’s fault, it’s because of the way the system operates.  Now that you are in litigation mode, everything you say could be misconstrued or used against you.  Therefore, all communication must be delegated to the lawyers. The lawyers decide how to use each piece of information to their strategic advantage.  The lawyers research and are governed by “the law,” which is really nothing more than a standard someone set as being fair in another case somewhere else, which may or may not bear close resemblance to your case.  There is no more opportunity for genuine communication, for healing, for working out truly win-win solutions.  The lawyers think in terms of solutions a court could impose, which are relatively limited.   Courts can order money damage and “specific performance” of some tasks, not much more.  Gone is the opportunity for solutions that come from the heart.  Not to mention, all of this lawyering costs money.  For each action of your lawyer, there is an opposite reaction from the other lawyer, and so on.  So costs escalate.  The lawyers love to score points by surprising the other side.  That doesn’t build relationships, either.   And then, there’s the worst part.  You don’t really know in advance what the judge will do.  Somebody will “win,” and somebody will “lose”.  Will it be you?  What will a total stranger decide about your case, based on a bit of information that passed through the gamesmanship called “rules of evidence”?   Could that lack of certainty be the reason people in litigation don’t sleep well at night, for months on end?  And when the gavel does fall, feelings are not resolved.  Instead, all that has happened is that the lid has been nailed down on the coffin of the conflict.  Feelings and needs have not been communicated.  Underlying needs and concerns have not been addressed.  But there is “resolution”.  People are not killing each other.  It’s better than nothing.  But still, I say …

A BAD DAY IN MEDIATION, IS BETTER THAN A GOOD DAY IN LITIGATION! 

This winter sunrise photo was taken by my daughter.  The symbolism, for me, is that even on a bleak, cold, winter day, there is still beauty in a new sunrise, in a new opportunity, and a new beginning.

Help In Preventing Foreclosure

I wrote the post that follows almost two years ago, soon after I “hung a shingle” as a solo mediator.   In some parts of the country, mediation has been used very successfully to help homeowners and lenders negotiate terms that help avoid foreclosure.  I thought of foreclosure mediation as an obvious example of a potential win-win for both homeowners and the lender:  the homeowner gets to stay in the home, and the lender doesn’t have to spend $20,000 repossessing a house and then re-selling a distressed home in a buyer’s market.  Unfortunately, not everyone else saw it that way.  Groups representing homeowners already seem to see mediation as an incursion into their turf.  Why would a homeowner need a mediator, when they have a representative?  Lenders are being represented by law firms that are getting paid by the hour or by the case.  The law firms have nothing to gain from mediation.  Indeed, it makes it more complicated for them because there’s an added issue.  Many home loans were packaged and resold, and there may be 10 or more “stakeholders” on the side of the lender.  It’s not that attorneys for lenders are evil.  Rather, mediation creates a huge logistical challenge for the attorney representing the lender to get all their constituents to the negotiating table.  Because of this latter challenge, in fact, the success of foreclosure programs throughout the USA depends largely on the “clout” built into the foreclosure process.  If lenders are not required to participate in mediation, with strong enforcement of that requirement through fines for example, mediation is not likely to be successful. 

 

Well, that’s a long explanation, but the long and short of it is that I do not do foreclosure mediation.   There is no requirement of mediation prior to foreclosure, and lenders will not voluntarily mediate, and agencies representing homeowners see no value in mediation.  For these reasons, there is no demand for my services as a mediator in foreclosure actions.  Moreover, it takes special training that I do not have.  What I will offer, however, this article, which has links to resources for homeowners who are behind on payments and facing the possibility of foreclosure.

 

Here, then, is the reprint of an article I originally wrote on my blog in January of 2010: 

__________________

 

Are you unable to make the payments on your home loan?  Are you confused about what to do?  Are emotions clouding your judgment and making it difficult for you to talk about it to your mortgage company?  If so, you are not alone.  Nationwide, about one in six families is behind on their mortgage.

Facing potential loss of  your home may also be a very emotional experience.  It may, simply, be difficult to face this issue.  However, it's important not to ignore the problem, because it will not go away.  If foreclosure proceedings are brought against you, the wheels have been set in motion to evict you from your home.  You must develop a "Plan B"!

What is a reasonable Plan B for a person who cannot make their mortgage payments? There are some steps you should take immediately.  First, assess realistically whether it will ever be possible for you to meet the obligation, under any circumstances.  A credit counseling agency may be able to assist you with this assessment. (Click HERE for link to HUD approved programs in  your state.  If you are in South Carolina, the link is HERE.)

There are federal programs for distressed homeowners (see links, HERE).  While helpful for some, these are less useful for others.

There are also some facts which may be important to your lender:  Can you show that you would be able to make payments if (1) the debt were restructured, (2) if the interest rate were lower, (3) if penalties were forgiven, (4) if any missed payments were tacked onto the end of the loan or spaced out over a period of time?  Also, can you prove to the bank that you will have ability to meet the restructured terms?  Can you produce income statements and a budget that shows you could do it?  There are many other options, as well, which are more detailed and which are beyond the scope of this article.

The worst thing you can do is to ignore this problem!  Your first step is to call either your lender or a credit counseling agency who can speak with your lender on your behalf.  Put your best foot forward, and give it a shot.

A lawyer recently told me, "By the time these cases come to mediation, the homeowner is nine or ten months in arrears, and there is just too much money owed.  The homeowner can't come up with the amount of money the bank needs to stop foreclosure."  Do not, do NOT wait nine months to talk to the bank!  Do not wait two months.  If possible, work things out with the bank so that you put your finger in the dike before you are even late on one payment.  Taking preventive measures may save more than your house, it may save your credit report as well.

It may be that talking with the bank seems too hard for you to do on your own.  Perhaps it is very emotional, or perhaps confusing.  Or perhaps the mortgagee doesn't seem willing to talk or talks break down.  If so, then you may wish to engage an attorney to assist you.

In South Carolina, a good resource to find an attorney who represents parties in foreclosure is through the S.C. Bar Lawyer Referral Service (click HERE).  If you don't have funds to pay for an attorney, you may also try South Carolina Legal Services.  (To qualify for help from SCLS, your income cannot be greater than 125% of the federal poverty level.)    Additional counseling agencies for South Carolina are also listed HERE.

*** [here the original article discussed mediation in foreclosure cases]

The most important thing is this:  You must not just sit there and wait for your house to be foreclosed.  Mediation is successful in somewhere between 1/5 (New Jersey) and 3/4 (Philadelphia, Connecticut) of cases.  Perhaps this seems like a discouraging statistic.  Yet, it's better than nothing.   Doing nothing will result closer to a 100% probability of your being evicted from your home.  Moreover, even if you cannot meet the obligation and must give the house back to the bank, there is a possibility that you may qualify for additional avenues that may help save your credit or cushion the financial blow of having to move.  (See resources HERE.)  These options are called a "graceful exit," and may be better for both parties than the alternative of a sheriff's eviction and judicial sale.  (For example, see article, HERE)

Whether you consult with an attorney, with a mediator, or with both, don't wait until you are many months in arrears to do so.  Waiting just makes the problems -- and the size of the missed payments -- all the bigger.  Talking may help prevent foreclosure.  Mediation helps the talking.  If you need help, call someone today.

[caption id="attachment_861" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Generally speaking, your proposal to prevent foreclosure must show some realistic way you can repay the debt if it is restructured"][/caption]

Important:  This article is for educational use and represents my opinion only.  Please understand that this blog is not intended as legal advice for your particular case. Nothing about this blog makes me your lawyer. Nor can I answer your particular legal problems. If you have a legal problem, you need to hire an attorney.

Technorati Tags: foreclosure mediation,foreclosure,freddie mac,fannie mae

Technorati Tags: home affordable

Recommended book: "A Is For Asshole" by Vickie Pynchon

I'd like to highlight a review of a book written by my friend Vickie Pynchon. This book is easy to read and very helpful when it comes to dealing with conflict. Highly recommended. click HERE for a more extensive review by mediator Joe Markowitz, and click HERE for a more extensive review by Tammi Lenski.  The bottom line is, buy it. 

Divorce Options in South Carolina

Have you ever heard of collaborative divorce?  Mediated divorce?  I just posted an article on my web site about options for divorce, comparing these options to litigated divorce, divorce with one lawyer, and do-it-yourself divorce.  For more information, click HERE. 

No one thinks divorce is a “good” thing, overall, but divorce using one of the newer methods of conflict resolution, that avoids pitting the parties against one another in battle, is far superior in most cases to adversarial divorce.  

Elder Mediation Helps Families

A recent article in the New York Times (click HERE for full story) tells the story of a family who got help from an Elder Mediator with a distressing family situation.

An elderly client was calling her caregiver in the middle of the night and making unreasonable demands.  The caregiver was close to quitting her job.  At a family meeting facilitated by attorney and elder mediator Joy Rosenthal, the family discussed the issues and needs of various people affected, including the elderly person and the caregiver.  Then, the group came up with a list of things they could to to make the situation more manageable for everyone.

There are a couple of things I love about this story.

For one thing, it makes it clear that Elder Mediation is helpful in many cases that would not call for court action.  The issue of calling a caregiver in the middle of the night was not the type of thing that people go to court for.   Yes, it is true:  mediation is appropriate for situations involving very serious issues that could legitimately be taken to court.  But mediation is not limited to these types of situations.  It can be helpful at every level of conflict.  Indeed, the earlier a family calls in a mediator, the better.

When the family calls a mediator at the first sign of distress, the mediator can intervene before the family has become polarized and estranged from one another.   (In cases where family appears headed for court, early intervention by a mediator may save not only relationships but tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and court costs.)  Additonally, mediation enables families to consider options that would never be available in a court of law.  In this case, the family was able to intervene before the caregiver quit, and mediation enabled them to work together to forge a creative, win-win solution.  The result?  The elderly client was happier, everyone had a better understanding of each other, the caregiver was able to to keep her job and work more reasonable hours, and the elderly client was able to retain a trusted employee.   Even more important, the air was cleared, people understood each other better, and a better foundation was laid for future decision making.

Another thing I like about the story is the simplicity of the solution and the way the solution met the true needs of all the parties.  (To learn the exact problem and solution, read the story!)   As this story illustrates, sometimes the solution is very simple, and all it takes  is to talk it through.

As simple as the solution sounds, however, I’m certain it was worthwhile to engage the mediator.   A qualified elder mediator isn't just a person who has decided to act as a middle man and "keep the peace".  A mediator, if properly qualified as an Elder Mediator, is a seasoned professional with advanced training not only in basic mediation skills, but also in mediation of large and complex family issues, and they will have specific training or expertise in elder and geriatric issues.    The mediator will know how to set the stage and manage a meeting in such a way as to ensure that all family members are heard and all interests are on the table before  options or solutions are considered to address those needs.  The integrity of the mediation process is what ensures that once a solution is in place, it is a good solution that does meet all needs, and not just a knee-jerk, slap-a-bandage reaction.   Indeed, that is one of the best values that mediation offers.    By going through the steps in a methodical way, as led by a expert in conflict management, families who choose mediation actually address root causes.  Conflict addressed in this way offers opportunity for families to develop better systems of communicating and making decisions, and thereby have the opportunity to achieve authentic healing and reconciliation.    It's virtually  a no-lose proposition.

To find a mediator in your area, search through mediators listed on the web site Mediate.com, or search specifically for an elder mediator on the site ElderCareMediators.com  .   I've also written a guide to choosing an elder mediator, which can be accessed HERE.

[caption id="attachment_475" align="alignright" width="300" caption="The author with her grandmother"][/caption]

(My own background that prepares me as an Elder Mediator includes approximately 160 hours of study of mediation techniques (including specific study with Zena Zumeta and Susan Butterwick in mediation of Elder issues and contested guardianship cases and study with Richard Blackburn in conflict transformation in large group settings), personal study in elder law, personal experience in elder care management, and graduate level study in medical ethics.  I am a member of the Elder Decisions section of the Association of Conflict Resolution, and I am listed on both of the above sites in the field of Elder Mediation.)

Compassion in Listening

One of the interesting things that happens when one begins to coach others is that the skill being taught becomes embedded more deeply into one’s own, personal life.  As a conflict resolution professional, one of the main things I do is to coach people on how to listen to one another.  My experience is that really listening, and really hearing, is not easy and it’s not intuitive.  I certainly can’t claim to be a perfect listener.  All I can say is that I’m learning and getting better. 

We all know, of course, that listening and hearing are required in order to understand the heart of what the “other” person is trying to communicate about their needs and interests that give rise to a conflict.  But often, in conflict scenarios, the parties are no longer in authentic communication.  Instead, they just talk past each other.  An additional challenge for a mediator, on top of getting the parties to listen to one another, is that it’s often the case that a person who is embroiled in a conflict situation and trying to communicate a general anger or other emotion doesn’t even fully understand his own reasons and needs, himself.  At such times, the mediator must listen twice as much.  Listen first in order to help the parties clarify what they mean and what they want to say.  Then, coach the parties in listening so that each can hear what the other is really trying to express and not just what they expect or want to hear.     

Listening is a skill that takes practice, practice, practice!  The good news is that we can get better at it.

What are some tips and tools for listening?

One thing a good “listener” can do is to clean their own glass, to make the lens through which we see and hear things less intrusive.  In other words, when we remove our own preconceived notions, then we become enabled to hear more of what the other person is really trying to say and less of what we are expecting or wanting to hear.  A word to describe the process of removing one’s self (and one’s own responses) is the term “mindfulness”.  When we become mindful of our own biases, tendencies, and prejudices, then we are better able to account for those and to try to filter them out.  What the insightful mediator is doing is removing himself from the frame so that the party may have a clearer image in the mirror of his conflict and his own response to it. 

The opposite of mindfulness is when we project a lot of ourselves into a conflict and hear only what relates to our own experience.  How many times have I (or you) listened to someone’s story and immediately knew what they should do?   Or how often have you heard a story and said, “The exact same thing happened to me!”  But, the exact same thing didn’t happen, and if the answer were truly so obvious the speaker would have found it already.  Personal mental responses like these are the mediation equivalent of raising a storm warning flag at a beach.  Friends who are in the position of listening to each other can be on the alert for these responses, too.  When I “know” what my friend ought to do, it means I haven’t removed myself from the story enough to really listen to them fully and presently.  If the answer is too obvious, there would be no conflict.  Since there is some countervailing view, if the answer seems too simple then it’s likely that some aspect of the conflict remains mis-understood.  

Another way of knowing when we are putting too much of ourselves into a communication is when we feel tempted to interrupt, even if we only interrupt the person mentally and not physically.  How many times, when a friend is speaking, are you tempted to think ahead in your mind to how you will answer them rather than continuing to listen to them as they speak?  For me, this mental feeling is like having two lanes of traffic.  One lane of traffic in my mind is the stream of thought that is attentive to what my friend is saying, imagining with them what their experience is.  The other lane of traffic in my mind is to be thinking about how I am going to respond to what they’re saying: How does this relate to me, what I can I say about it to give them feedback?  The problem is,that mentally I can really only be in one car at a time.  If I’m already formulating the response to my friend, then I’m not really listening fully to them in the present, here and now. 

So, next time your best friend is telling you about a situation and you’re tempted to give advice, think of this column.  Instead of projecting your own idea of “what is true,” or thinking “this happened to me,” and then telling the person what to do or giving them advice, try first to discern the reasons that their situation feels like to them.  Why do they perceive a conflict in the first place, what is that experience like for them?  What values, needs, and interests got them into the situation where they find themselves?

Most likely, there’s more to their situation than can be answered by a simple knee jerk reaction and response.  What our friend needs from us is not advice, but the feedback and mirroring to help them gain insight.  Then, with increased insight, our friend can find the answers from within themselves.  Answers that come from within and are authentic to lived experience are the ones that will be best in the long run.  So, the way to be a better friend is to help our friend develop capacity from within, not by imposing a solution from without. 

How to do this?   Ask powerful, open ended questions of our friend, as a means to help uncover some of those underlying complexities, different perspectives, and ways of increasing understanding of the experience which is being communicated.  In my next blog post, I’ll write more about that. 

Lighten Up!

Okay, time for a break from all that serious stuff.

 

Q:  How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?

A:  How many can you afford?

 

Q: How many judges does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Judges do not change the light bulb.  They just say who is responsible for the darkness.

 

Q: How many arbitrators does it take to change a light bulb?

A: Same as judges, but you can’t appeal the decision.

 

Q:  How many mediators does it take to change a light bulb?

A:  Mediators do not change light bulbs, they empower the bulb to change itself.

 

(This joke was originally posted on May 2, 2010, by Debra Synovec on her blog http://www.RealDivorceMediation.com )

Two Wolves: A Cherokee Parable

A wise Cherokee chief was teaching his grandson about life...

"A fight is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves.

"One is evil. 

“He is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt, and ego.

"The other is good. 

“He is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith.

"This same fight is going on inside you - and inside every other person, too."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather,

"Which wolf will win?"

The old chief simply replied,

"The one you feed."

 

(Author unknown)

Technorati Tags: mediation,peacemaking,affirmation,peace,cherokee

Trauma Healing: The Snail Model

Talking about forgiveness ....

My blog post a few days ago was about the intellectual concept of forgiveness.  But there's much more to forgiveness than merely what we "think" about or "decide" to do.  When bad things happen to us, our whole being, including our body, is affected.  This, in turn, affects how we relate to ourselves and to each other.  It's not my goal to beat people over the head and be judgmental about telling people they should "forgive" or "just move on".  That is not helpful.  My goal is to help people reach an authentic state of peace.  For a person who has been the victim of trauma, this can be challenging. 

Cutting edge research shows that people who are victimized by violence need treatment for more than their physical wounds.  They need help in rewriting the story of their lives in a way that gives coherence and meaning.   

The following video illustrates the "Snail Model" of trauma healing.  This is basically a roadmap for people who have experienced painful events in their lives to see a process by which they may be healed, not just physically but mentally and spiritually.  A printable illustration by Olga Botcharova can be found HERE. 

If you are suffering from the effects of violence, or if you know someone who is, I encourage you to print this and share it with the person who is affected. 

Sometimes even just seeing a model like this will result in an "aha" moment.  The person will see where they are on the cycle and gain insight that will help them heal.  Not everyone needs (or has the luxury of engaging in) therapy with a caring and trusted counselor.  But regardless of whether the mental and spiritual wounds from trauma is small or large, it can help a person just to know that what they are experiencing is normal, that they are not alone. 

Panic, anger, sleeplessness, fantasies of revenge -- these are not signs of insanity, they are normal.  And there IS a path to healing.  It may be slow, it may be challenging.  But a person who has been victimized by crime, by war, by a terrible auto accident, can walk that path to healing.  No matter what the physical wounds, a person who has experienced trauma can can achieve spiritual and mental peace so that they can sleep at night and feel right with the world.   

No matter what your circumstances, I want to assure you, there IS HOPE for peace. 

This is a particular issue not just with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but also for anyone who has been affected by crime or violence.  Even, perhaps, in our own families.   Whether this model may apply to you, or to someone you know, please be aware of it and be ready to share the hope, and the help, when the time comes.     

I hope you find this video helpful.  If you do, please leave a comment to share how it helped you. 

Righteous Indignation, The Christian Believer, and Mediation

 

For Christians who are experiencing conflict with each other, mediation doesn't just offer hope for a settlement.  It can do more, offering a chance at authentic reconciliation. 

"The problem with that idea is," I was once told by an experienced lawyer, "when people are mad enough to sue each other, they just ain't feelin' very Christian!" 

Well, that's right.  The process of Bible-based, Christian reconciliation is pretty strong stuff.  Most likely, if you are in a dispute -- especially if you have been sued or are thinking of suing someone -- you ain't feeling very Christian right now.  This is not a blog post for the ordinary person.  It is only for a committed Believer.  If you don't fall in that category, why should you want to even consider Christian conciliation?  On the other hand, if you are a committed Believer, my question to you is, are you willing to try the Biblical way? 

For the Christian Believer, the first step in Christian reconciliation -- your first decision -- is to investigate the concept of Christian reconciliation and what makes it different from other forms of conflict resolution.  You are reading this.  That's a big step. Thanks for being here!  Now for the hard part ... the spiritual part.

The offer of hope for reconciliation doesn't mean that parties to a conflict are expected just act like nothing every happened.  Acting like everything is okay, when it's not really, is to "fake peace" rather than "make peace".  I'm afraid this is the sin I personally am most prone to. 

When I was a young child growing up, Sunday School was a place for hats and white gloves.  The appearance on Sunday morning was that everything was perfect: in order, perfectly coiffed, unruffled.  In real life, Christianity where the tire meets the road is a bit more messy than this.  In real life, there are days when one's hair is ruffled.  Indeed, in real life there are days when one's friend commits suicide, when one's spouse is diagnosed with a terminal illness, when one's boss gives a pink slip, when the bill collector is calling and there is no way to pay the bill.  So, nothing is perfect.  It's only when we acknowledge that -- when we acknowledge our own brokenness or the brokenness of our relationship with another person -- that we can begin to take positive steps to address the causes of that brokenness and to heal it.  

So, the first step is to acknowledge that things are not really okay. 

There's another, important part of our requirement to acknowledge when things are not okay.  We must be on the alert to whether we have done something that causes another person to not be okay:  Our natural inclination is to be "on the lookout" for times when someone has wronged us.  It's less natural, but just as important, for us to be aware of (and be sensitive to) ways in which we have offended others. 

The second step is to do our part.  If I have offended someone, it is my duty to make restitution.  These are subjects for a different day.

What I want to write about today is actually the part that comes next:  If I am the one who has been offended, the Bible commands me to forgive. 

This is something I've personally struggled with.  What does it mean to forgive?  What if it seems impossible?  What if the other person has not even acknowledged that they've done something wrong?  What if they haven't even acknowledged that they need forgiveness?  So, I'd like to dwell on this a bit. 

Authentic reconciliation requires more than just "saying sorry" and then acting as if nothing ever happened.  Nor does it mean that there are no consequences.  We can't change the past, we can only change the future.  I suggest that when a person seems focused on the past, it means they are not quite ready to move forward to forgiveness.  Do you find yourself focusing mentally on wrongs from the past, on how evil someone was?  Are you having trouble "letting bygones be bygones"?    

What reconciliation means, is that we are offered an opportunity to change that path.  We can't change the past, but we can deliberately change the shape of the way we move forward in the future.  Changing this path, adopting the path of reconciliation, is not easy.  But if we seize the opportunity for reconciliation, what we are seizing is an opportunity to move beyond the brokenness of a wounded world, to give and to experience forgiveness.  If we address conflict at its emotional root, by giving and accepting redemption and reconciliation, then the wound can heal.  This frees us to move on emotionally from a conflict.  When we move on emotionally, we are then freed to experience genuine peace.  

Imagine the experience of peace!   Breathe deeply, sigh, let go of tension.  Imagine a peace that passes all understanding.  Imagine the restfulness of that.  Does it sound too good to be true?  That's the vision. 

Perhaps all this "forgiveness" stuff sounds complicated and theoretical.  How do we put it into action?  What steps do we take to get there?  How can we capture that vision and make it reality?

I suggest that the first step is to pray.  Begin by praying about your conflict. 

Prayer opens doors to new ways of perceiving conflict

Read scripture.  Think on what it really means to "forgive ... as we have been forgiven".  (Matt 6:12)  Indeed, the entire possibility of reconciliation of one with another begins with God's ultimate gift to us of redemption and reconciliation with HIMSELF.  Jesus provides the model of what to do in response to sin. 

Wow, that's a tough one.  The Bible doesn't say for us to forgive if the other side meets us halfway.  Nope.  It's pretty straightforward: 

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus had done nothing wrong, yet he just stood there and took it.  He was a man who, though blameless, willingly gave his life in order to reconcile God with Man.   We in turn -- who have been forgiven so much -- have an obligation to extend that same, sacrificial level of forgiveness to others.  As I said, this is a difficult thing to wrap our minds around.  It's not only hard to read about and to understand on an intellectual level.  It's even harder to apply in our own lives.  Nevertheless, through reading and understanding the principles, we can begin to believe in the possibility of forgiveness.  Now time for more prayer.  Take time to plow deep furrows in the field of our own willingness to be changed. 

Jesus as a model for how to respond to a wrong?  The guy allowed himself to be crucified for a crime he didn't commit!  Does this mean I have to be a martyr?!! 

Step three is simply this:  to give it time.  For right now, the idea of forgiveness may seem to be an impossible fantasy.  I think it's perfectly natural to feel as if a wrong is so evil that it can't be forgiven.  The easiest case to visualize is those few-and-far-between cases where a parent forgives the person on death row who murdered their child. 

Prayer invites the Holy Spirit to work miracles

"How," we ask, "could a parent actually forgive the person who murdered their child?"  It is only through a miraculous act of Grace.  And moreover, it is not my place to judge you for what you can or cannot forgive.  Who could judge someone if they feel they could not forgive their child's murderer?  I surely will not cast the first stone on that one!  All I can say is, the teachings of the Bible say what they say, and there is nothing easy about them.  If we are able to forgive, surely it is through the miraculous workings of God's grace.  So, that's why I say the first step is prayer.  And the second step is prayer.  And prayerful reading of scripture.  At least, that's the way it is with me. 

In terms of pursuing the activity of mediation, there's also the issue of, what if the other person is not willing to even talk or consider a mediation?  I recently was reading a statistic that of every ten cases referred to mediation, only five people are interested in mediating.  The other five just want to proceed to a lawsuit.  And then, of those five cases where the person is interested, only about 20% of the time is the other party also willing to mediate.  What does it take to bring the other side to the table?  Well, that is a discussion for another day.   The key for discussion here, today, is whether I have a duty to "go it alone" on this forgiveness thing even if the other side won't even come to the table.  And also, what exactly does that mean?  How can I forgive something if the other side doesn't even acknowledge he's done something wrong? 

I don't have the answers.  All I can say is that, one can have great faith, even in the face of grave doubt.  If you have doubt, you are also in good company.  One man who doubted, spoke candidly to Jesus about his doubt.  The man had approached Jesus and asked him to heal his son.  But he didn't say it just that way. Instead, what the man said to Jesus was put this way:  please heal my child "if you [Jesus] can". 

Jesus exclaimed to him, "If you can!?"   I can almost hear the outrage in his voice.  Jesus doesn't seem to have much patience for this man's doubt.  But he answered the man, "Everything is possible for him who believes!" 

The man replied, "I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!" (Mark 9:23-24) 

Prayer opens doors to possibility

When we have doubt, the next step on the journey is to pray for God to help us overcoming our unbelief.  Perhaps, with God's help, forgiveness might be possible. 

Over time, with God helping our unbelief, we may find ourselves beginning to imagine a world where forgiveness might be possible not just in theory, somewhere else, but in this case.  Here.  Now. Me. 

How to pray about this? 

Well, first look at this picture, then put it aside and read on.  This is an exercise and I'll come back to the picture after "talking" some more: 

“Forgiveness is the final form of love.” Reinhold Niebuhr

 

 

Prayer enables us to imagine a better future

In your prayer journey, be imaginative.  Imagine what a world would look like, and feel like, in which you have forgiven.  Imagine a world in which you have peace, individually, whether or not the other person does.  Imagine a world where your children were free to be friends with the children of the person who had wronged you -- a world where even the kernel of bitterness was gone.  Is that a nice thought?  Perhaps it would take a miracle.  Imagine that miraculous grace. 

Now, suppose the person who wronged you is willing to talk.  If you are preparing for a mediation, ask yourself, "What exactly would it take for me to be open to the idea of forgiving this person?  What do I need to hear from this person -- or see them do -- that would remove obstacles to my forgiving them?"  Sometimes, it will be impossible to come to terms with another person.  But it sure makes forgiving easier when the other person meets us halfway.  Or maybe even all the way.  Gee, in my own life, sometimes even a baby step is a help. 

This is where the mediator can play a role.  The mediator can discuss issues with each person, together, separately, and can literally be a "go between" when things are just too hard to talk about.  The mediator can also provide some feedback, assessment, and other tools that just might shake the tree enough to help parties get beyond entrenched positions.  (See for example, Breaking Impasse in Mediation, HERE .) 

Bear in mind also, that this process -- discussion, communication, forgiveness -- does not mean either party is expected to become buddy buddy or to just kiss and make up and act as if there has never been a grievance.  Sometimes there are consequences of actions that cannot be undone. 

The mediator's role is to help parties reach a peace, a place where they feel right with each other and with God.  A place where the party can pray, honestly, "Forgive me my many debts, Lord, in the same manner as I have also forgiven the one who owes me."  What that means is a matter between the parties and God. 

On our own, this type of forgiveness might seem impossible.  But it is something God asks us to do, and therefore, it is not impossible.  As Christians we walk by faith and not by sight.  No matter who we are, or what we have done, or what may have been done to us, there is a path to forgiveness.  It may not be easy, but with time and prayer we can find it. 

Prayer illuminates the steps on the path to peace

It's also a path that goes two ways, back and forth.  In our prayer journey, each of us needs to also ask ourselves, "What do I need to ask this person to forgive me for?"  The path to peace involves not only bestowing forgiveness, but also acceptance of and appreciation of the gracious act of being forgiven.  Sorry, but it's a Biblical mandate:  "Confess your faults to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed."  (James 5:16).  Rarely is hurt purely one sided. 

Prayer heals wounds

Life wounds us.  We need healing.  Failure to forgive results in bitterness.  Bitterness festers.  It's as if a knife remained embedded in the wound.  No matter how many bandages we put on the wound, the wound will not heal until the knife of unforgiveness and bitterness has been removed.   Unfortunately, I'm afraid, many of us know people who have lived their lives this way.  Bitterness eats at them like a cancer and robs their days of joy. 

Luke 17:3-4 says, "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.  And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." 

This requirement of forgiveness prohibits us from holding grudges; it prohibits us from even having bad feelings toward our fellows.  Matthew 5:21-24 says:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.

Our society also seems to put great weight on the principle of "righteous indignation".  Sorry, but there's no such thing. Romans 3:10 says, "There is no one righteous, no, not one."  This cuts both ways.  It reinforces that your feelings are normal.  None of us are perfect.  As we also know from Romans 3:23, all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.  Yet also, this passages reminds us that there is no such thing as "righteous indignation".  We are all under an active obligation to forgive, as we have been forgiven. 

Prayer reminds us to have compassion

Still got indignation?  Pray about it.  If you're having trouble letting go of a wrong that someone has done to you, I suggest that over a period of time, you meditate for a few minutes per day over the following story, and how it might be applied in your own life: 

Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded. His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'  But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened. Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

As this passage shows, what's really at stake is our reconciliation with God.  We are given a commandment to forgive "as" we forgive others.  This is incredibly difficult.  But ultimately, it also holds out the promise that we can achieve an authentic peace not just with each other, but with God. 

This brings me back to the picture I included above.  This is a famous drawing designed to illustrate the concept of "gestalt".  When we see it for the first time, we only see a group of random dots.  Over time, however, the picture changes.  Our mind brings order to the dots and we see a scene of something else.  This is similar to what I am suggesting prayer can do.  Applied over time, using scripture as a reference, prayer can actually change us in miraculous ways.  We begin to see things in ways we never would have thought possible.  We become able to do things we perhaps never would have thought possible.  We may even be able to relate to another person in a way that ... previously we never would have thought possible.  Perhaps, miraculously, we become able to forgive. 

I conclude with Colossians 3:12-17:

Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

Peace to you!

Balance of Power in Mediation

"A cornerstone of the mediation process is the protection of self-determination. If a party cannot self-determine their own future, then little difference exists between mediation and a judge or hearing officer deciding their fate for them. Empowering someone to determine for themselves the outcome of their conflict is part of the design of the mediation process and the skill set of talented mediators."  Managing an Imbalance of Power by Rick Voyles, http://www.mediate.com//articles/voylesR3.cfm (accessed October 16, 2009).

 

Specific items which raise red flags in power imbalance are, among other things, verbal bullying and other means of control, and hoarding of information. 

What's Your Personal "Plan B"?

I'm reading the book The Power of a Postive No: How to Say No and Still Get to Yes, by William Ury.  I won't try to review the whole book right now.  I just want to mention one concept that struck me yesterday as I was reading.  That is, the importance of having a workable "Plan B". 

In the lingo of negotiation, and in the previous two books Ury has written, Plan B is the same as the BATNA:  Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement.  Prior to a negotiation, each party should consider what is their best alternative in the event the negotiation fails.  If a negotiated settlement offers less than the BATNA, then choose the BATNA.  Unless a party knows their BATNA, they don't know when to walk away from the negotiation table. 

Your "Plan B" may not be something you would voluntarily choose, if you had a choice.  For instance, a "Plan B" for a manager negotiating a supplier agreement may be that he will lose a sale, or even that his company might go bankrupt if that were the company's sole source of income.  The "Plan B" for a woman in an abusive marriage may be to leave her husband, even if she has no prospects for living on her own and must go stay in a shelter for battered women.  The "Plan B" for an employee who cannot work requested hours may be to lose his job.  These "Plan B" scenarios don't leave the person in a good position.  Therefore, the person loses power in a relationship; they are unable to negotiate for what they truly need and must accept a "second best" existence. 

On the other hand, the Plan B may be much better than this.  Perhaps the "worst case scenario" isn't so bad after all.  Jenny Sanford, for instance, wife of the adulterous Governor Mark Sanford, has independent means.  Because of the strength of her position, her "Plan B" is simply to leave behind the cheating spouse.  Having a strong "Plan B" is crucial to having a strong bargaining position for life. 

What struck me about my reading yesterday was not the simple fact that one must know what "Plan B" is.  No, it was a different observation.  It's quite simple:  If your "Plan B" isn't appealing, then you need to work on improving your options. 

How can you improve the other options available to you, so they will be more palatable to you if negotiation doesn't work and they must be exercised?  In the examples above, the Manager may wish to cultivate other customers.  The wife may wish to pursue career training.  The employee may wish to ask for assistance in meeting demands at home or for help from other employees to make his job more reasonable.  No matter what the circumstance -- whether dealing with the local auto mechanic, with an unruly teenager, or with the leader of a nation on the verge of war -- it's always a good idea not only to have thought out, but to have consciously worked on creation of an acceptable "Plan B". 

This leads me to ask, in general, "What is YOUR personal 'Plan B'?"  If it's not something you find acceptable as a fallback, then you need to work on making it more palatable.  The New Year is a great time to reassess and reposition to answer the question:  What concrete measures need to be taken in order to improve my personal "Plan B" list of options?  

 

Technorati Tags: negotiation,getting to yes,getting past no,BATNA,ury