mediatorinthemaking.com

There’s a lot of chatter in the blogosphere and beyond about neuroscience, its applications to conflict and leadership studies, the people getting it right and the people perhaps just leaping and bringing along hordes of neophytes. Mirror neurons and neuroplasticity are good examples of advances in science sometimes twisted in on themselves by pop-science culture. (Click here and scroll down for one often shared view on mirror neurons, and here for another voice.)

As a relative novice in conflict work and an outsider to the world of neuroscience, I enjoy living and working in a time when neuroscience can be accessible enough for me to have opportunities to absorb and apply it. Yet, I find it challenging to separate the true science from the pop.

I’ve come to trust Brains on Purpose for a responsible approach to the intersection of neuroscience and conflict studies. The recent “Are you a wise mediator or a woolly mystic?” is no exception.

The current work flapping some feathers is the TED lecture of Jill Bolte Taylor. Terms like “mapping the microcircuitry” sound very impressive to a layperson like me. Her message regarding the right hemisphere is one of interconnectedness that many people need right now. This is balanced by her message regarding the left hemisphere, as being that part of us which allows what many call “othering.” Her description of her near-death experience and the potential of all humankind which it revealed to her is moving (though I’ll admit, respectfully, I found myself thinking of Terrence McKenna at one point…at least a few of you might see it).

Stephanie West Allen has posted Some critical thinking about the Jill Bolte Taylor video. She quotes a professor as saying, “It is unfortunate that Jill Bolte dragged out the left-brain/right-brain stuff as an explanation for her experiences since the brain does not work that way.” And Diane Coutu says, “I can’t predict how much Taylor’s ideas are going to influence the business community, but the current popularity of so-called right-brain exercises in management training programs augurs badly.” As if the science weren’t enough, accounts of the wild profitability of this story unfortunately awakens the curmudgeonly skeptic in me.

I find the main idea of Ms. Taylor’s message to be both moving and inspiring. “We are the life force power of the universe … We have the power from moment to moment to choose who we want to be in the world…Which do you choose? And when?”

That’s something I can bring to the mediation table, to my coaching sessions, and with me in my own moments of conflict.

I think I’ll hold on to that and get my science elsewhere.

I was writing up a leadership tutorial today, creating a mini-collection of the leadership methods I’ve learned from various sources — including mediation training — and put into practice in my work. As often is the case, my mind wandered into various related corners and so lead me to consider the benefits of a transparent approach to working with people in multiple contexts.

My focus was on training the volunteer leaders I work with to put into practice some of the same leadership skills I use working with them. I hadn’t been full conscious of the fact that to date I had not yet provided this information quite so transparently. Why? I work with very capable and experienced people. Perhaps it was a fear that revealing all of the ‘tricks up my sleeve’ would render them less effective.

This seems to be the flavor of conversations I’ve had with experienced and novice mediators regarding the benefits and pitfalls of varying degrees of transparency in the mediation room. Like in many of the situations I find myself in at work, I think the degree of transparency appropriate in the mediation room depends on the situation: the person, the content of the conversation, even the timing.

In this brief moment of clarity, I find that I am much more hopeful about the benefits of transparency in leadership than I realized. And I am eager to be more conscious about testing the waters of transparency in the mediation room — as well as in difficult conversations during which I get to employ some mediation magic.

I’m not certain that I’ll have a whole lot of opportunity to test the waters of transparency in my small claims work. But in other settings both professional and personal, I might find opportunities. And it’s something I’ll remain mindful of as I explore new venues to flex my mediation muscles.

Anyone have any resources to suggest for further study on the subject?

When we struggle — with ourselves or with others — we tend to name what’s wrong.

Some of us use “you” language. “You aren’t listening to me.” “You’re ignoring me.” “You aren’t helping me.”

Some of us use “I” language. “I feel like I’m not being heard.” “I am being ignored.” “I feel unsupported.”

Either way, we’re naming what’s wrong. What happens once the wrong is righted? Are we then so used to our mantra of what’s wrong that shifting our mental maps to accept and acknowledge what’s right seems foreign, uncomfortable, difficult, even impossible?

I think what often happens is that we can’t move ourselves into this new phase, accept that what’s wrong no longer is, and move on. We’re stuck.

So. What if we named what we wanted, rather than what we didn’t? (No, this is not a rip off of “the secret” which I’m not completely sold on anyway.) If I choose to say, “We’re working on listening to each other well” instead of “He never listens to me,” I’m using the power of language to place me on a path to where I want to be rather than stick me right where I don’t want to be.

I think this could help me relate to people based more on their potential than on their shortcomings. And so help me spend more time and energy on being productive and constructive than stuck in conflict.

Try it! I will.

When people come across as confident, some can assume that there is a secret to that confidence. So, here’s mine. I’m not always all that confident.

The more I learn about conflict management, negotiation, mediation and conflict resolution, the more comfortable I am with conflict managing conflict.

Side effects of this may vary. For me, they include the following. I can advocate for myself. I can recognize a situation’s potential to devolve into conflict, open my toolbox and pull out an opportunity to strengthen relationships, learn from the people around me, and help us all achieve good things.

I think others see this as confidence, or even fearlessness. Strong will. At worst, maybe some who don’t pay close attention name stubbornness or obstinateness.

In reality, it is a level of comfort with conflict and an ability to maintain a stronger focus on resolution than on obstacles.