mediatorinthemaking.com

During my recent and very fabulous vacation to Iceland (I highly recommend it), I had the opportunity to witness quite an exchange on a plane. Many people tend to not be at their best when traveling.

As we boarded the plane for our late evening flight, two men became a bit entangled. One was standing in the aisle, taking longer than some might like to get situated (we’ll call him Man #1). The other, having fully lost his patience, barked.

Man #1 (who I know to be generally mild mannered) chose to respond to Man#2 with matched annoyance. They went round a couple more times — at least six rows away from each other — before both were finally settled in their seats, and thankfully quiet.

What was gained or lost in this moment of conflict? Here are my observations:

1. The stress level of a number of passengers was at least momentarily increased.
2. Man #2 became increasingly heated with each response from Man #1, and so certainly nothing was solved with any of Man #1’s responses.
3. Had Man #1 not responded, the moment of conflict would have ended before it began.
4. Both men just wanted to get into their seats. Neither achieved this any more quickly or enjoyably through their spates.
5. Man #1 realized that Man #2 and a bunch of other people wanted to get to their seats, but thought that with a number of other people also in the aisle ahead it would make no difference if he rushed. Bottom line? He didn’t mean to be in the way.

My pearls of wisdom on this one …

• By assuming the worst of each other, both turned a perfectly harmless event into a harmful one.
• Giving back just what you get might not get you anywhere good, when you don’t like what you get.
• You never know who you’re talking to. Man #1 and Man #2 turned out to be staying in the same hotel in Iceland, making for more than one unnecessary awkward moment.

I love that the more I learn, the more I realize there is for me to learn. Case in point: having patience with people who don’t have the same training … and defining who I am in conflict.

It seems that the deeper I go into conflict management and resolution, something interesting is happening. Dealing with people either unaware of or unskilled with good approaches to difficult conversations … either it is now more difficult for me to employ good practices with them specifically, or am I now more aware of when I’m not doing so.

My impatience is especially strong in the face of rampant negativity. When attention and care are not given to providing constructive feedback, when complaints are rattled off so that it almost seems like a person is railing against me, when someone beats the same point over and again. I try to employ good active listening, move toward understanding. But I feel attacked. I feel my work is attacked. I want to defend, disagree. I want to bring us to an agreement … an agreement that agrees with me.

Iit seems that my someone else in these situations often can only be satisfied with an apology. Or better yet, a commendation for being so right and pointing out so rightly how wrong I am/it is/we are.

If my someone else seems not even interested in understanding, then what? What if when time is a major factor? Or in person communication is not possible? This is where one of my new favorite books comes into play. Difficult Conversations.

I’ve generally felt utterly stuck when I didn’t know what to do next in a difficult conversation. I’m now feeling like I’ve gotten my hands on some very good keys.

Perhaps people who tend to need to ‘hammer home’ their points over and again do so because they don’t feel heard in the conversation, or generally they don’t feel heard in life. If I know how to hold a constructive inner monologue, I can control my reactions better. I don’t have to take a difficult conversation so personally, or see negativity as attack.

It’s much harder than I expect, every time, to practice in real life authentic curiosity with someone displaying hostility or conveying biting negativity.

It’s more frustrating to watch a conversation go in a less than ideal way, now that I can see how it could go better … without always knowing how to get it there.

It’s all part of the journey for a newbee in this world. I’m loving it!

I recently spoke with someone who was experiencing ongoing conflict with colleagues.

Quite a lot of emailing, memo sending, and such types of communication were described. Misunderstandings, hurt feelings, and mounting frustrations had come to define the relationships.

I listened. And then asked one question. “Have you tried speaking with them?”

A pause. And then, maybe with a little bit of wonder, “No, I haven’t tried that.”

No in-person conversations had happened between these folks. No relationship building, understanding seeking, principled negotiating to resolve conflicts before they came to define the relationship.

If you’ve gotten stuck in such relationships, I hope you’ll consider this simple suggestion. Spend more time and energy trying to understand and be understood than identifying how those other people are wrong or bad or not in right relationship with you.

It’s much harder to other that other person when you’re looking right at him or her. It’s much harder to build a relationship with, to have patience and understanding for that other person, if your relationship is all through email and memos: faceless but not voiceless things that can’t look you right in the eye.

We can approach our work from a place of partnership. We can consciously strive to recognize our shared missions. We can focus on the us, the interdependence, that is work. Especially in the standard office.

Now successfully having conversations that get us to this good place, especially with difficult people (or if you are a difficult person … we all can be sometimes), is not as simple as this post. But even trying and not exactly succeeding is better than stewing in stress.

I’m eager to have my next conversation with my frustrated friend and learn how things are going.

We can choose conflict. We can choose to try. We can choose to build partnerships. It’s always up to us.

Monster and CareerBuilder searches for Boston area jobs with the keywords “mediation, mediator, conflict resolution” return hundreds of jobs. Hundreds. And yet, as I’ve described in recent posts, the field of mediation is described as an overcrowded field terribly difficult to break into (and with a very bright future should you break in).

What’s happening here? The jobs are vastly different. An Administrative Assistant position at Northeastern University’s Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution. Lots of Human Resources Manager positions calling for, among other things, effective conflict resolution skills. Ditto for Project Managers at places as different as State Street Corporation and The TRANE Company. Labor Relations Manager for the American Red Cross. Customer service and support roles also abound. Organizational Development and Learning Consultant for Partners Healthcare.

The trends I’ve been able to spot in these seemingly disparate jobs are that the greatest concentration of them are in management. And most of them include requirements of strong negotiating and effective communication skills, in addition to conflict resolution or mediation.

My questions far outnumber my observations at this point.

Does today’s workplace require all professionals, at least all managers, to be skilled in the arts of conflict resolution, mediation, negotiation and communication? That would be fabulous. Though my experience is that such skills are seen as happy bonuses in professionals adept at skills more directly related to the work on their desks.
But if this is becoming the new universal requirement … How could this change the conflict resolution and mediation professional fields? Will it push such professionals to develop their respective fields more deeply? Force even more focus on training than practice?

Where are all of these professionals learning their skills? Are they all dedicating 40 hours to basic mediation training? Online courses promising to turn them into skilled mediators in a few short hours and without those pesky other people? I know a lot of mediators find their bread and butter in training … mediator courses, on-site corporate trainings, one-on-one coaching. Perhaps that is where true growth lies.

I’ll need to do more research and watch the job markets closely to understand much more than I now do. In the meantime I look forward to hearing from folks out there already thinking about these questions and more.

This morning, on the treadmill, my wandering eyes found a very exciting flat panel TV showing in very exciting HD a very exciting courtroom drama. You know the kind, with two people airing their private lives before a judgmental judge (yes, I’m aware of the unfortunate but rather fitting language).

A few minutes later, I look up again to find a divorce courtroom drama and I recall an article I read recently saying something like that working with a mediator can cost 1/4 what it would to go to court. Don’t quote me on that as I’m very possibly misquoting. But it is easy to find literature touting the merits of mediation vs. court for a range of disputes, especially divorce.

As I wondered why anyone would choose to air their private lives before a snappy judge and the daytime TV watching world, I had an idea. Maybe conflict is just too exciting for us to avoid.

Can you imagine what would happen if Divorce Court was replaced with The Mediation Room? Would anyone watch two spouses learning to manage conflict and speak to each other constructively thanks to the leadership and facilitation of a mediator?

I recall being amazed to watch a party at (real live) small claims court mimic so deftly the stereotypical People’s Court plaintiff, complete with totally unrelated personal insults, I could’ve believed it was scripted.

Yes, I realize we could easily debate the actual reality of “reality” court TV shows. But I think it is more important that enough people watch these shows to have kept them on the air for possibly decades. Or keep about seven hours of such shows a day on network TV now. (Yes, seven hours at last check of Comcast listings.)

So how do we minimize the allure of the down and dirty conflict? How do we make constructive communication more exciting than petty insults and flailing unkindnesses?

Perhaps it’s the people who like to watch. The people who don’t come to mediation. Perhaps these people are our true clients.

Well, it’s over. The Colts lost to the Chargers. The Cowboys lost to the Giants. And I - along with most fans - was certain both games would turn out exactly the opposite.

Because I was sure the outcomes of these games had been written in the stars, and apparently I had a special line to those stars, I barely watched these two great games. I glanced up every now and then to see who had just inched past the other.

I didn’t really pay attention until the last five minutes of each game (that’s playclock minutes for you non-footballers out there. sorry, no time to explain.) And what exciting minutes! Two close games, two teams I assumed would win just, well, sort of folding in on themselves.

Where am I going with this? Really, there is a connection. I entered into the situation assuming I already knew the outcome. So I missed out.

If I enter into a conversation, a mediation, etc., assuming I know what will happen — or at least what I think I need to know — I miss out. I will either inadvertently control and lead the conversation. Or I will never get to learn what I could from this unique and knowledgeable person (everyone is themselves and so unique, and everyone is knowledgeable about something I’m not, yes?). Or I will not reach the resolution I could because I’m so busy driving towards my predetermined destination.

And that’s what I learned from the NFL playoffs this weekend.

Oh - also that the Pats are seriously the best team that has ever played the game, to date.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming … my first series, “On Listening.”

I am consistently and profoundly moved by the power of listening.

I used to sense a wave of anxiety come over me when encountering an angry person. Whether or not they were angry with me. Until my most recent chance to get it right.

I listened without communicating judgment. I asked open ended questions truly meant to learn more and convey curiosity, rather than to lead. I did my best to follow my conversation partner wherever he went.

I recall clearly the moment I realized that this angry person, who had inspired such knots of stress, was no longer angry. Anger had receded and in its place was what I might even describe as a sense of comfort. I had guided this person in transforming conflict into an opportunity for something positive to happen.

We spoke for quite a while, and I learned quite a lot that I would not have had I been focused solely on solving the problem as I had identified it. I allowed myself to approach this person’s conflict from a place of patience, respect, and comfortability with my abilities. And I allowed myself to accept not knowing everything, sort of allowing a large space within myself which could be filled with this person’s story — where previously I might have stored up my own assumptions.

I think we humans, perhaps we in the U.S., have severely undervalued the art of listening and the rare experience of being heard. Is it our U.S. culture? Is it human nature? Does it begin within the family?

Whatever it is, the moment when we become conscious of our power to listen is profound.

I’ll get back to my Mediation Musings On Listening soon. For now, I’d like to discuss something that’s fresh in my mind. Perhaps my hordes (alright, maybe trios) of readers will have some insights to share.

I had a funny conflict diffusion experience today. The scene: a meeting (yes, shocking, since I work in an office). The players: well, office people … including your mediator-in-the-making and one colleague I know to be an experienced and skilled mediator, and one office person becoming possibly frustrated.

Mediation ensues, in the hopes of transforming potential conflict into constructive conversation before conflict even occurs. Yay, mediators!

How do our super heroes do this? Why, listening, of course. But where would listening be without reflecting and reframing? A big thank you to Moshe Cohen and his listening triangle for giving me a mental picture for the wonderful game of questioning, listening, and reflecting back.

As soon as I heard my colleague employing this skill, I listened carefully. And I watched an interesting thing take place. It was a sort of endless feedback loop. A reframe refrain (a link for the non-musically inclined).

I jumped in. Each time I reflected and reframed, the person I was reflecting … reflected back to me. Not to correct me, but to agree that I had accurately echoed their sentiments.

We went round a few times, as had my colleague, until I feared we could do this endlessly and so summarized that we all seemed to be in agreement and were short on time so really should move on unless there were any objections.

So my questions to the mediation blogosphere are these. Have you ever found yourself inside a reflect, reframe refrain? How do we land there? How do we gracefully exit?

I occasionally find that a post I’ve started really should be teased out into multiple posts. So, from time to time, I’ll post miniseries on various topics. This first one will be a string on listening.

Recently, two people I supervise landed in a bit of a heated conflict. Each is very dedicated to and personally invested in our work, each is experienced in the pitfalls and rewards of human collaboration. One is in the role of supervisor while both are leaders with extensive leadership experience. Can you see where this is heading?

Both are very busy people who generally opt to communicate by email. Now you see it, yes?

One interpreted the other’s well intentioned email as negative and perhaps even patronizing. A round of email volleyball ensued, escalating with each message served up hot and cold.

You might have witnessed, or even participated in, such exercises. For the two or three people in the world who haven’t, I will enlighten.

Each person reads the other’s words and listens to their own interpretation. There is no opportunity for dialogue in the moment. Each person

stews in their frustration, typing and perhaps retyping their response as the steam builds. There is no eye contact, tone of voice or body language to aide in understanding or fostering empathy. Rather, each is left to decipher the other’s message through their own filters. A misunderstanding, which could quickly be identified and resolved in live communication, turns into a rift threatening the relationship and rather challenging to mend. After all, how often do any of us take the time to write back to someone, “I don’t think I quite understood what you just said. Could you elaborate?” And if we did, what would happen? Email lends itself less to open, meandering conversation and more to immediate, decisive response.

I watched this progress and waited for the proper moment to dive in to the fray. When it came, I stepped away from the keyboard and got on that

antiquated yet still rather useful tool, the te-le-phone.I prepared myself in advance of each call and will discuss my approach to these conversations in my next installment of Musings: On Listening.

For now, I’d like to focus on what I met with on each call: relief. Not at first, mind you. But eventually it was clear that each party felt relieved to actually hear from a real live person, patiently and actively listening to them. They each simply wanted to feel — no, not feel, be — heard and valued.

I hope that each person came out of this experience excited to continue our collaboration. I believe true collaboration means trust, positive assumptions, and an eagerness to make relationships work in order to achieve goals we can’t on our own — or, without that, a stronger focus on the work at hand than on our collaborators’ perceived shortcomings.

At any rate, I know that my stepping in to actively listen to each person preserved our relationships and ensured continued progress in the work we’re all invested in. And I know that I used just about every tool I had in my mediator’s tool box to acheive that result.

And now for the obligatory cliches, or lessons learned. I dusted these beauties off and found new life in them during this experience …

Most people are doing the best they can most of the time.
-I first heard this one from my 10th grade biology teacher. I have no idea to whom to credit it.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
-Habit 5 of the Seven Habits of Highlyg Effective People, Stephen Covey

Come back soon for more installments of my first Musings miniseries!