mediatorinthemaking.com

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!

U.S. News & World Report’s annual listing of best careers is out. And … drum roll please … mediator is included for the first time. You’ll find it under the headers, Best Careers for a Changing Job Landscape and 31 Careers With Bright Futures.

One factor leading U.S. News to give mediator the nod this year is its resistance to offshoring. It makes sense. We can’t very well have all of our conflict resolution occurring across the vast oceans or continents.

Each career listed comes with a day-in-the-life feature, and an executive summary. Considering what I’ve learned thus far from experienced pros, I’d say these pieces are pretty on point.

The pros noted are that

• Mediators can provide a better alternative to hiring a lawyer when conflict is unresolved, as mediators “can often help resolve a dispute less expensively and with less conflict…”
• “Most mediators love their work, helping people beat their swords into plowshares.”

And the cons…

• Mediators outnumber mediation jobs.
• Low barriers to entering the field (just a 40 hour training) continue the overpopulation.
• Overpopulation of the field means “most mediators do not earn a middle-class income for one to five years.”

This matches well the message in Jeffrey Krivis’ and Naomi Lucks’ recently published, “How to Make Money as a Mediator (And Create Value for Everyone).” Chapter one can be summed up thusly: If you love mediation, if you live for it, if you work very hard every day to build up your skills and connections, you have a chance at putting food on the table doing something you love. Otherwise, pursue something that will better suit you.

So. Do you fit Krivis’ and Lucks’ profile of the top tier mediators?

• Do you love mediating? Are you good at it?
• Do you inspire trust? Are you likeable?
• Have you cultivated relationships with referral sources, or will you be able to?
• Are you ready to work hard? (Long days, late nights, and less time with family and friends.)

If you’ve answered yes to all of the above, you might have a good chance at what’s being reported as one of the top careers with a bright future in the U.S.

If not, I hope you won’t despair. I believe the skills trained mediators possess are vital to our local, national and global communities. The more I learn about conflict, the more I see how people trained in conflict resolution are desperately needed in our offices, stores, schools, government bodies, busy streets, families and friendships. Even if it’s not your bread and butter, you can take heart in knowing that you’re part of a movement.