Managing Differences

How to Build Better Relationships at Work and Home

Kindle edition, 2025

Dan Dana, PhD

This book serves as the sourcebook for training in workplace mediation offered by Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College, St Petersburg, Florida.

www.mediationworks.com

Other publications by the author may be found at

www.dandana.us

Kindle edition published by Five Palms Press, Sarasota, Florida (www.dandana.us/fivepalms), by permission of Eckerd College

All text was authored by Dan Dana. No text was generated by AI.

Contents

Preface to the e-book edition (2026)

Prefaces to previous editions (1996—2005)

Endorsements of the original 1989 edition

A word on words

Toward non-sexist language

Preview of Self Mediation

Introduction

Part 1: The Challenge

Chapter 1: Interpersonal Tragedies: Why the World Needs a Simple, Practical Peacemaking Tool for Everyday Life

Chapter 2: Does Self-Help Help?: How This Book Might Save Your Job, Your Marriage, Your . . .

Chapter 3: Assessing the Cost of Conflict in Your Organization

Chapter 4: Why Do We Self-Destruct?

Chapter 5: The Three Levels of Conflict

Part 2: SELF MEDIATION: A 4-Step Method

Chapter 6: A Skeleton View

Chapter 7: The Cardinal Rules

Chapter 8: STEP 1: Find a Time to Talk

Chapter 9: STEP 2: Plan the Context

Chapter 10: STEP 3: Talk It Out

Chapter 11: Skills for Dialogue

Chapter 12: STEP 4: Make a Deal

Part 3: LIMITATIONS

Chapter 13: Resolution Is Nonrational

Chapter 14: What It Can Do, What It Can't

Chapter 15: When It Works, When It Won't

Part 4: THIRD-PARTY MEDIATION

Chapter 16: Helping Others Manage Their Differences

Part 5: WHY IT WORKS

Chapter 17: Introduction to the Behavioral Science of Difference Management

Chapter 18: Dynamics of Interpersonal Conflict

Chapter 19: Forces Toward Harmony

Chapter 20: Summary: How Self Mediation Turns Conflict into Cooperation

Part 6: COMMON COURTESY

Chapter 21: Better Living through Mediation in Everyday Life

Appendix:

1: Notes for the Other

2: How to Use This Book for Quick Reference

3: True Tales of Success

#1: Balancing Work and Family

#2: That’s Not Your Job!

#3: A Marriage Saved?

#4: Aftermath of Downsizing

#5: Interdepartmental Conflict

#6: But They Said You Said . . . !

4: Managing Cultural Differences

Glossary

Addendum: The Promise of Mediation: Mitigating the Conflicts that Disrupt Our Lives (a keynote speech delivered in 2018)

Author

Preface to the e-book edition (2026)

In the 37 years since Managing Differences first appeared, its timeless message has touched untold thousands of lives. Through its translations to Spanish, French, German, Polish, Russian, and others, it has helped people manage their differences in workplaces and homeplaces worldwide.

Now, in its first e-book edition, the entire interconnected English-reading world may apply its practical tools for everyday peace-making. As today’s geopolitical and domestic turmoil ascends, its message has never been more urgent.

Prefaces to previous editions (1996—2005)

Preface to the First Edition (1989)

Interest in conflict resolution has burgeoned in recent years. We professionals in this emerging field, like specialists in other disciplines, talk to each other a lot. We write articles, publish scientific journals, hold conventions and produce books. These efforts have created an extensive body of knowledge available to mediators and academicians.

But I fear we have lost sight of whom we are serving.

Differences in attitudes, values, priorities, lifestyles, perceptions and interests occur in every meaningful relationship – in our workplaces, families and communities. These differences often give rise to conflicts that hurt our loved ones, our organizations, and ourselves. But rarely are these conflicts brought to a mediator for resolution. We do the best we can on our own.

Where can the non-specialist turn for practical help in managing day-to-day differences with others?

This book offers a simple tool to all of us who work or live with other people. Self Mediation is not intended for mediators, consultants or researchers, although it may provide insights to their work. This tool is designed for people who do not aspire to becoming mediators, and who may not choose to bring their disputes to mediators for solution. It is for people who want more satisfaction and value from their workplace and personal relationships. It is for people who desire an alternative to coercion (“power-plays”) and distancing (“walk-aways”) as strategies for coping with interpersonal differences. It is for people who recognize the importance of working at relationships, and who want to prevent differences from leading to destructive conflict. Perhaps it is for you.

Preface to the Second Edition (1996)

Since Managing Differences first appeared in 1989, thousands of people have learned the 4-step Self Mediation method and applied it in their everyday lives. Owing to its publication in several languages, and its English-language distribution in Asia, Africa, and Australia, we are now confident of the cross-cultural effectiveness of this simple communication tool. And, Managing Differences has been adopted as a textbook for courses at colleges and universities and used as a sourcebook for corporate training and continuing education programs in North America, Europe, South Africa, and Latin America. Consequently, our understanding of how and why Self Mediation works has greatly improved in the past seven years.

The second edition of Managing Differences reflects this improved understanding. Several sections have been extensively revised. And, some cases are enclosed in Appendix 3 that were written by readers who provided reports about their experiences using Self Mediation and Managerial Mediation. Finally, the second edition ends with a discussion of “Common Courtesy,” pointing the way toward even more “user friendly” mediation tools for everyday life.

So it is my hope that the second edition constitutes an even more valuable resource to empower even more people to act proactively in improving the important relationships in their lives – at work and home. The past success and the future promise of this practical communication tool reaffirms my commitment to a career of helping people realize the potential of their relationships, making their organizations more effective, their communities more satisfying, and their lives more fulfilling.

Preface to the Revised Second Edition (1997)

This revision is prompted by two developments.

First, Talk It Out: Four Steps to Managing People Problems in Your Organization, a version of the first edition published by Human Resource Development Press in 1990, has been replaced by Managing Differences as the sourcebook for a wide range of corporate and organizational training courses on resolving conflict in the workplace. So, the chapter on “Managing cultural differences,” which had been written specifically for Talk It Out, is now included as Appendix 4.

Second, the Managing Differences Learning Test, the core component of a leaderless staff training program for managing conflict at work, has been developed in a broad range of customized versions. An editorial revision was needed to make Managing Differences more suitable as its sourcebook.

Aside from these two developments, Managing Differences continues to serve superbly as the sourcebook for Self Mediation, which is increasingly recognized as not only a core competency for the workplace, but also as an empowering life-skill for us all.

Preface to the Third Edition (2001)

The four years since publication of the revised second edition have brought remarkable developments:

The Self-as-Mediator Seminar, which is the learning program in which people learn to apply the communication tool described in this book, now rivals the Manager-as-Mediator Seminar in popularity. Managing Differences now serves as the sourcebook for both seminars.

To accommodate the support materials accompanying the Self-as-Mediator Seminar, the tool has been renamed Self Mediation.

Website www.mediationworks.com, which is the home on the Internet of the Mediation Training Institute, has become perhaps the most frequently visited mediation-related site on the world-wide web.

Certified Trainers of Workplace Mediation, who draw upon the contents of this book, now bring its message to people and organizations on six continents, in English and in Spanish.

Conflict Resolution: Mediation Tools for Everyday Worklife (McGraw-Hill, 2001) extends the insights of Managing Differences to managerial mediation, preventive mediation, team mediation, and the strategic management of organizational conflict.

Still, the message of Managing Differences remains essentially unchanged. It continues a sturdy and reliable vehicle for helping people build better relationships at work and home, worldwide.

Preface to the Fourth Edition (2005)

Coincidentally, the third edition was published the month the world changed – September 2001. Our paradigm of conflict and its resolution suddenly shifted. We live in a less innocent age.

Like so many millions of other innocents, I was stunned into near-paralysis by the attack of September 11. For several days, I could hardly muster the enthusiasm to do my daily work of teaching and advocating conflict resolution. It seemed so tiny, so puny, so insignificant.

Eventually, my existential choice became clear, as it must for everyone beset by huge, irrecoverable loss: Do I choose to live, or do I choose to die? I can do nothing about terrorism on a global scale, but I can still do my work of interpersonal peacemaking, however tiny. So can we all.

Managing Differences continues to serve as the sourcebook for learning by ever-greater numbers of people who participate in the Managing Differences Seminar Series. Once again, I feel my work to be important. So is yours.

Endorsements of the original 1989 edition

Dr. Dana is an expert on the world’s most important task—the making of peace—as this thoughtful book demonstrates so clearly.

George McGovern‚ Former United States Senator‚ 1972 Democratic Party nominee for President

Dr. Dana provides a practical guide for dealing with conflict interpersonal relationships. He moves from scholarly content to commonsense with uncommon ease.

Richard F. Celeste‚ Governor of Ohio

Amazingly clear‚ concise and logical. Though easy to read‚ it is rich in content. There is wisdom in this book and a practical life philosophy between the lines. I could have used it sooner.

Susan M. Stine‚ PhD‚ MD, Professor of Psychiatry‚

Yale University School of Medicine

Anyone engaged in day-to-day personal and professional

relationships should keep Managing Differences within easy reach.

Wallace Warfield‚ Distinguished Visiting Fellow‚

Administrative Conference of the United States

Groundbreaking! This book could become a classic.

Robert Schachat‚ PhD, President‚ Industrial Division‚

Westchester County (New York) Psychological Association

Managing Differences brings it all together—theoretically and practically. A fine guide for making our #1 problem a #1 opportunity.

Robert T. Golembiewski‚ Ph.D. University of Georgia;

Author of 325 publications on organization development

A Word on Words: Special Terms

A few key concepts are central to the message in this book, so it is important that I communicate them effectively. To do so, I will use words and phrases that have designated meanings. These are listed below as a special vocabulary, with the page number where each term first appears. Note that some of these terms differ somewhat from their familiar definitions.

Terms that have special meanings will appear with the first letters capitalized to distinguish them from everyday speech. Each term will be defined when it first appears in the text. You will also find full definitions in the Glossary.

Self Mediation

Other (the other person in your relationship)

Both-gain

Wrong Reflexes

Distancing (Wrong Reflex #1)

Walk-aways (Wrong Reflex #1)

Coercion (Wrong Reflex #2)

Power-plays (Wrong Reflex #2)

Win-Lose Illusion

Bad Person Illusion

Boulder-in-the-Road Illusion

Blips (Level 1 conflict)

Clashes (Level 2 conflict)

Crises (Level 3 conflict)

Cardinal Rules

Dialogue (in Step 3 of Self Mediation)

Essential Process

Breakthrough

Deal

Toward Non-sexist Language

The evolution of the English language has left today's writers with a troublesome legacy – we have no common-gender singular personal pronouns.

The reader is no doubt familiar with the various ways that authors address this problem – using generic masculine or feminine pronouns, combined terms (“he/she” and “her/him”), and pluralizing all pronouns (“they” and “them”). For various ethical and practical reasons, I am uncomfortable with these solutions.

In this book, I will alternate masculine and feminine gender pronouns from paragraph to paragraph, or from scenario to scenario. By alerting you in advance, I hope to minimize any distraction of your attention from the book's message that alternating genders may cause.

Preview of

Self Mediation: A 4-Step Method for Building Better Relationships

Step 1: FIND A TIME TO TALK

The Approach

The Issue Statement

The Request

The Sale (if needed)

The Cardinal Rules (if needed)

The Time & Place

Step 2: PLAN THE CONTEXT

Removing the “land mines” from your environment.

Step 3: TALK IT OUT

The Opening

Express appreciation

Express optimism

Reminders: The Cardinal Rules

State the issue

The Invitation

The Dialogue

Task #1: Stay engaged in the Essential Process

Task #2: Support Conciliatory Gestures

The Breakthrough

When these TASKS are performed during this special DIALOGUE in an appropriate CONTEXT, partners' attitudes can shift from “me-against-you” to “us-against-the-problem.” This shift opens a window of opportunity for making a Deal that is good for both people.

Step 4: MAKE A DEAL

Balanced

Behaviorally specific

Written

Introduction

This practical peacemaking tool may be used by everyone – not just specialists in mediation and conflict resolution.

The dispute resolution profession may have lost sight of the obvious fact that most people who strive to build better relationships at work and home do it on their own, without professional assistance. The “Self Mediation” method has been carefully developed and tested so it can be used by non-professionals. The mediator's tool kit has been emptied of all unessential, special-purpose, nice-to-know tools. Only the basics remain here, in this general-purpose tool for the non-specialist.

The intent of this book is to offer you a simple, effective communication tool for managing differences in relationships that matter to you. I will have failed in my mission if after reading it you say to yourself, “Okay, sounds good, but it's too complicated for me to use.” Learning this method alone will not make you an expert mediator or negotiator. But using it can empower you to build better relationships at work and home. Make Self Mediation, and its underlying insights about interpersonal conflict, your routine response when troubling differences arise. Others will thank you for doing so!

Part 1: The Challenge

Chapter 1:

INTERPERSONAL TRAGEDIES:

Why the World Needs a Simple, Practical Peacemaking Tool for Everyday Life

Seamus and Claribel work together. Or, we should say they are supposed to work together. If their manager really knew how little work got done, she would have a fit. Their jobs require that they cooperate, but Seamus finds cooperation impossible under the circumstances. It seems that every time he tries to get Claribel to do her share of the work, she finds some new excuse. Seamus winds up taking work home and spending extra hours doing what Claribel is supposed to do. He's fed up. Last weekend Seamus updated his resume and made some calls to friends in other companies. He decided he doesn't need to take this grief any longer.

Hayden tries to remember what it was she admired about Oliver before they married. Whatever those redeeming qualities were, they seem to have vanished. Oh sure, Oliver is a pleasant fellow, and her friends say he's charming. It's hard to know what the real problem is – they argue about money, about parenting roles, even about which TV show to watch. Lately, they've been avoiding each other, trying not to spark another fight. Whatever the problem, Hayden is becoming discouraged. This is not what she wanted from marriage.

The Scope of the Problem

These are not soap opera scenarios. They are only two of the millions of real-life dramas played out daily. The world is teeming with interpersonal tragedies like these.

“Tragedy” is a strong word, but Seamus and Hayden are strongly affected. Workplace conflicts lead to stagnated careers, job stress, lowered productivity, lessened motivation – even termination and resignation. Emotional alienation in families leads to unrewarding marriages, troubled children, distant relationships – even divorce, abandonment, and sometimes violence.

Three million involuntary job terminations and over 800,000 voluntary resignations occur each year in the United States – figures on the rise in this age of “downsizing.” How many of these departures broke a potentially productive bond between employee and employer? Over one million couples divorce each year in this country alone. Did all that love really disappear? Human nature drives us to seek relationships, not to leave them.

For every terminated relationship, there are many more in which partners maintain a tense and distant truce that brings them only meager satisfaction. Chronic unresolved interpersonal conflicts cause needless emotional pain and wastefully drain individual vitality and organizational resources. And, the United States represents only one-twentieth of the world's population. The magnitude of loss, in human and financial terms, is incalculable.

Tragedy Can Be Averted

So many of these tragedies are achingly unnecessary. There exists a way for individuals in strained relationships to take charge of managing differences and resolving conflicts. They can regain trust and intimacy, and resume teamwork. The method is so simple it may seem simplistic. Yet it has the power to transform conflict into cooperation, mistrust into trust, and alienation into meaningful human connectedness. It harnesses natural forces lying dormant within relationships that can heal wounds caused by anger, insult, and hurt – the carnage of mutual revenge.

Differences, Needs, and Conflict

In every relationship, the differences that make us unique individuals are also sources of potential conflict between us. We differ in our values, self-interests, priorities, and in many other ways. The greater the differences, the heavier the burden on our ability to manage those differences. The less effectively we manage differences, the more conflict we experience as a result.

Relationships satisfy needs. Whether at work or home, every important relationship is a vehicle for delivering value to each partner. Our relationships with our bosses hold potential for satisfying our needs to feel productive, to accomplish meaningful work, to produce widgets, and to earn paychecks. Marriages and other intimate relationships can satisfy our needs for emotional and physical contact, for security, and for fulfillment of our identities as women and men. When our needs are met, we are satisfied, happy people.

Conflict drains the capacity of relationships to satisfy our needs. When we experience too much unresolved conflict, the relationship loses its ability to satisfy us. We are left alone, isolated, unable to do by ourselves what requires two to do.

Ironically, as we depend more heavily on a relationship to satisfy our needs, conflict is more likely to occur. High interdependency can cause conflict to grow more intense. Yet, to paraphrase poet John Donne, “No one is an island.” Human nature and the human condition require that we depend on others, that we be interdependent with others in satisfying our individual needs.

Room for Improvement

Interpersonal differences that breed the conflicts, and the tragedies, that each of us experiences from time to time can be better managed. No matter how skilled we are now, potential exists for us to be happier and more productive. In this book a practical method for managing differences is introduced that eliminates the use of Distancing (“Walk-aways”) and Coercion (“Power-plays”) – the typical yet counterproductive ways of coping with difficult situations. You can use Self Mediation to build better relationships at work and at home.

A Personal Need

As author, my relationship with you, the reader, holds the potential for satisfying my need to feel that I am a useful human being, that the time I devote to my chosen career makes a meaningful contribution to others. In this book, I offer you what I know about turning interpersonal conflict into interpersonal peace. I would be gratified to learn that Self Mediation has helped you. Let me hear your story. Write to me in care of the publisher.

Chapter 2:

DOES SELF-HELP HELP?

How This Book Might Save Your Job, Your Marriage, Your . . .

Often, while reading self-help books, I think to myself, “It sounds good, but I doubt I will remember much of this a month from now.” I am skeptical of suggestions that a quick dose of advice will have long-term impact in real-life situations.

The Problem of Self-control

Much of the advice in self-help books urges us to alter our perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, motives, intentions, attitudes, or values. Once these changes are accomplished, it is suggested, then some personal problem related to the subject of the book will be solved. Perhaps so.

My skepticism lies in the difficulty of accomplishing these changes. Perceptions, thoughts, attitudes, and the like are invisible “mental events” that occur privately within our heads. They are not observable by others. Mental events are extremely difficult to control or manipulate. Uncomfortable feelings, unwanted thoughts, disturbing perceptions, and self-destructive motives can intrude, despite our efforts at self-control. For most of us, our willpower is seldom adequate to fend off the challenge of strong, persistent thoughts and feelings.

Behavior is easier to control than mental activity. Behavioral events are observable and can be controlled by the behaver. Behavior can be described in concrete terms, like a physical object can be described. We can say, “I’m going to write that report, even though I don’t want to.” The writing is behavior; the wanting to is a mental event. Behavior can be seen or heard. Precisely defined behavior either is or it isn’t; it happens or it doesn’t happen. We may dispute the motives that give rise to the behavior, but the fact of its occurrence is indisputable.

An Illustration

The United States government has been attempting for decades to eradicate racism from American society. Critics have faulted the effort on the grounds that it is impossible to “legislate morality.” In other words, they argue that some citizens will hold prejudicial attitudes toward people of other races regardless of laws to the contrary. The critics have a point. In truth, racism is a category of mental events happening in people’s heads that cannot be directly affected by commandments that they not exist. A moment of introspection will corroborate this point: Many of us who grew up in racially divided communities learned racist attitudes that we now are trying to sweep from the dusty corners of our minds. Despite our best intentions, we struggle against the effects of decades of socialization to eliminate unwanted traces of racial prejudice.

With a 1971 US Supreme Court decision, the federal government spurred the busing of students to achieve racial integration in schools. The busing program makes no pretense of directly altering students’ attitudes toward people of other races. It simply requires that students of different races spend time together. We know for a fact that when young people frequently interact in multiracial environments, their attitudes change. So the Supreme Court decision was directed at a change in behavior, not in personal beliefs or values. However, by busing students (behavioral events), the government is indirectly affecting racism (mental events).

Behavioral Prescription

This book offers no prescriptions about how you should think or feel in interpersonal conflict. As an adult, your mental events have been largely fixed through decades of life experience. Admittedly, our patterns of thinking and feeling can be changed, but probably not by simply reading this or any other self-help book. That is the task of psychotherapy and other more intensive paths to personal growth.

Self Mediation is a behavioral prescription, a 4-step recipe consisting of behavioral ingredients. When its directions are followed, the recipe can indirectly change how you and your Other* feel (reduced anger, increased trust), what attitudes you have (increased optimism about your relationship and your ability to cooperate), and your intentions toward each other (less hostile, more friendly).

* The term “Other” with a capital “O” will be used in this book when referring to the other person in our two-person, ongoing, interdependent relationships.

Link Between Behavior and Attitude

The link between the busing program’s behavioral ingredients and the resulting changes in racial attitudes may not be obvious. Just how and why does a behavioral event change a mental event in a predictable way? That is where behavioral science enters the picture. Contrary to critics’ claims that busing does not change children’s racial attitudes, scientific research has demonstrated clearly that, given enough time, forced integration of schools does in fact change children’s attitudes, reducing their negative racial stereotypes.

The link between the behavioral ingredients in the recipe of Self Mediation and the interpersonal harmony that it produces may not be obvious either. Just how and why does communicating as this simple tool prescribes result in reduced conflict, increased trust, and better teamwork? Part 5 of this book is dedicated to explaining this link.

But Self Mediation is not simply untested theory, to be taken on faith. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated consistently. It works even if you are skeptical, and it works even if you don’t understand why it works. It is only necessary that you make the deliberate choice to use this communication tool as it is designed to be used. The cases in Appendix 3 tell stories about how readers of the first edition of Managing Differences used it in real life.

How This Self-help Book Can Help

So, this book’s central purpose is not to give the reader self-insight or to label communication styles. Rather, it offers you very practical, concrete, behaviorally specific advice for managing differences that can erupt in destructive conflict, eroding the value of your important relationships.

Wherever you are as you read these words, you live and work with other people. I invite you to test Self Mediation for yourself. Use it just once in a relationship that matters to you. Then watch the results. Notice how trust is regained, affection is renewed, and cooperative work is resumed. Then continue to use this simple communication tool to get more satisfaction from living and working with Others.

Chapter 3:

ASSESSING THE COST OF CONFLICT IN YOUR ORGANIZATION*

NOTE IN FOURTH EDITION, 2005: The assessment method in this chapter (now titled the Dana Measure of Financial Cost of Organizational Conflict) is available as an on-line cost-of-conflict calculator available to the public at www.mediationworks.com.

* This chapter is adapted from an article that first appeared as “The Costs of Organizational Conflict” in Organization Development Journal, Fall 1984.

Unmanaged employee conflict is perhaps the largest reducible cost in organizations today – and probably the least recognized.

It is estimated that over 65% of performance problems result from strained relationships between employees – not from deficits in individual employees' skill or motivation.

Interdependent workplace relationships are a fertile soil from which conflict can sprout. Organizations are lush gardens hosting many flourishing varieties of this annoying and resource-sapping weed.

Now let's look at how this weed saps financial health and vitality. This chapter can be used as a self-administered instrument.* Use the worksheet at the end of this chapter with the following instructions to calculate the strictly financial costs that a particular conflict incurs, aside from its impact on quality of worklife and job satisfaction.

Worksheet Instructions

First, identify one conflict that is very familiar to you, either by having been a participant or a close observer. It may be a conflict that is still current, or one that happened in the past. Jot down a key word or phrase to help you stay targeted on that particular conflict.

The “cost factors” listed on the worksheet are the primary ways that conflict incurs financial costs. Not all cost factors are relevant to every conflict, but every conflict incurs cost by several of these means. Analyze your targeted conflict by asking yourself, with regard to each cost factor in turn, “Did/does the conflict I am analyzing have the effect of . . . . . . ” If you answer yes, calculate its dollar cost in the ways suggested, and enter your estimate in the space provided. When you are completed, sum the column to derive an estimated total cost.

Factor 1: Wasted time

Invariably, conflict distracts employees from otherwise productive use of their time. A classic management study* revealed that up to 30% of a typical manager's time is spent dealing with conflict. A more current study** of practicing managers showed that 42% of their time is spent reaching agreements with others when conflicts occur.

Estimate the amount of time wasted by each person who is/was affected by the team conflict. Then calculate the financial cost as a fraction of monthly or annual salary or wage, including the value of insurance and other fringe benefits (typically at least 50% of gross salary).

For example, let's say each of four employees wasted 40 hours during a six-month period because conflict disrupted their work. And, let's say the annual salary of each employee is $40,000. Forty hours is one week of work time, which is one fifty-second of one year's salary. A year's salary is generally about two-thirds of total compensation. So, the dollar value of the four employees’ wasted time is $4615.38.

Factor 2: Reduced decision quality

Decisions made under conditions of conflict are always inferior to decisions made when cooperation prevails. This is

* “A Survey of Managerial Interests with Respect to Conflict” by Kenneth W. Thomas and W. H. Schmidt, Academy of Management Journal, June 1976.

** “Managers as Negotiators” by Carol Watson and Richard Hoffman, Leadership Quarterly, 7(1), 1996.

true for two reasons. First, we know that good decisions must be based on an optimum quantity and quality of objective information. If information is withheld or distorted by those who are depended upon to provide it (which nearly always happens when information providers are in conflict with the decision-maker), then the decision cannot be the best one possible.

Second, if conflict is present between people who share decision-making authority, as in the case of team-based decisions, the resulting decisions are likely to be contaminated by the power struggles between those people. A precise estimate of cost is probably impossible. But ask yourself, “What opportunities were lost by poor decisions that were affected by this conflict, and what might have been gained if a better decision had been made?”

Considering these influences on decisions made by the people affected by your target conflict, estimate their cost and put the figure on the line provided. Place a conservative (i.e., on the low side of the range of its potential financial impact) figure there, even though the actual cost may be highly variable and very uncertain. Guideline: 50% of the dollar impact of decisions that were made while the conflict was going on (e.g., estimate $2500 if a team was disputing whether to purchase a $5000 piece of equipment.)

Factor 3: Loss of skilled employees

Organizations invest in employees’ skills by paying a premium salary upon hiring and by providing training thereafter. Exit interviews, which ascertain reasons for terminations, reveal that chronic unresolved conflict acts as a decisive factor in at least 50% of all such departures. Conflict accounts for up to 90% of involuntary departures, with the probable exception of staff reductions due to downsizing and restructuring. Raytheon Corporation determined that replacing an engineer costs 150% of his/her total annual compensation. This determination was reached by accounting for lost productivity, recruiting fees, interviewing time, staffing department employee salaries, orientation and retraining costs, etc. So, replacing an employee whose annual salary is $40,000 incurs a cost of $90,000. If one or more employees departed at least partially because of the conflict you are analyzing, figure the cost to your organization.

For example, using conservative estimates, let's say that one employee voluntarily resigned, and that his/her decision to leave was only 50% due to the conflict. Using Raytheon's figures, the dollar cost of this factor is half of $90,000, or $45,000.

Factor 4: Restructuring

Often, design of workflow is altered in an attempt to reduce the amount of interaction required between employees in conflict. Unfortunately, the restructured work is usually less efficient than the original design, which would have been satisfactory if the conflicting employees had been able to work together. As with Factor 2 above, it is impossible to precisely calculate the resulting inefficiency, but your subjective assessment will give a reasonable estimate. Again, be sure to enter a conservative (low side) figure on your worksheet. Guideline: 10% of the combined salaries of employees whose relationship was restructured for the time the restructuring is in effect. Example: Estimate $8000 if four employees, each of whom is paid $40,000 annually, were reassigned to different task groups for a six month period, i.e., (($40,000 X 4)/10)/2). Rationale: The financial value of employees (i.e., “human resources”) to an employer for performing specified work is, by definition, roughly equivalent to their salaries. If that work must later be restructured to control interpersonal conflict, the redesigned work relationship is probably not the most efficient allocation of the human resources.

Factor 5: Sabotage/theft/damage

Studies reveal a direct correlation between prevalence of employee conflict and the amount of damage and theft of inventory and equipment. And, covert sabotage of work processes and of management's efforts usually occurs when employees are angry at their employer. Much of the cost incurred by this factor is hidden from management's view, excused as “accidental” or “inadvertent” errors. This cost is almost certainly greater than you may realize. Again, enter a conservative figure on the worksheet. Guideline: 10% of the acquisition cost of equipment, tools, and supplies that conflicted employees use in performing their jobs. Example: $2500, if an operator of a $20,000 machine in a manufacturing environment is angry toward his/her supervisor ($2000 for careless operation and maintenance of the machine, plus $500 for unnecessary scrap and waste of raw materials).

Factor 6: Lowered job motivation

From time to time, most employees experience erosion of job motivation due to the stress of trying to get along with a “difficult person.” As a baseline figure, use the productivity that would have occurred had no conflict occurred. Then, estimate a percentage decline of that productivity. Multiply that percentage times the dollar value of the total compensation of the person(s) affected to derive a figure for Factor 6.

For example, let's say that the productivity of three employees was eroded by 20% for a period of three months.

Using figures similar to those above, the three employees’ total compensation was 3 X $60,000, or $180,000. Since one-fourth of this amount ($45,000) was earned during the three-month period, the conflict cost the organization $9000.

Factor 7: Lost work time

Absenteeism has been shown to correlate with job stress, especially the stress associated with anger toward co-workers. This stress, combined with disregard for how one’s absence impacts others, leads to employees’ choosing to take time off – sometimes excused as a “sick day.” And, medical science has determined that nearly every physical illness and injury, from viral infections to cancer to workplace accidents, are partially “psychogenic.” That is, they are caused in part by psychological or emotional conditions. The portion of lost work time that has resulted from your targeted conflict is largely hidden from your direct view, with the possible exception of your own absences. Still, you can arrive at an estimate by prorating daily or monthly compensation. Again, be sure to enter a conservative estimate on your worksheet. Guideline: 10% of annual salaries of employees in conflict. Example: $18,000 if all six members of a department, each of whom is paid $25,000 annually, are in ongoing conflict with their supervisor, who is paid $30,000, throughout the year

($25,000 X 6) ÷ 10 + $30,000 ÷ 10.

Factor 8: Health costs

As mentioned under Factor 7, illnesses and injuries requiring medical attention are partially psychogenic, and conflict contributes to their psychogenesis. Since the rate of claims affects the premium paid by an employer to its insurer, insurance is an indirect cost of workplace conflict. Estimate the percentage of the psychogenic component of medical problems that have occurred while your targeted conflict has gone on, and multiply this percentage times the premium increase imposed by your organization's insurer. Admittedly, this psychogenic component is difficult to ascertain, and you may not be privy to the insurance costs of your employer. So, enter a conservative figure based on your knowledge of these matters. A shortcut is to enter 10% of the number you have entered for Factor 6, “lowered job motivation,” since the stress that results in reduced productivity is also related to our physical health.

What is the total cost?

Now add the figures in each of the eight cost factors to derive an estimated total cost of your targeted conflict. Remember, this accounts for the cost of just one conflict – how many others have occurred in your organization if you extend your estimate over the period of a year?

By repeating the analysis for other conflicts, or by multiplying the resulting figure by the number of conflicts that have occurred, we gain fuller appreciation of conflict as an expensive organizational process.

If you are a manager, enabling your employees to use Self Mediation may be the best decision you can make today.

Cost Estimation Worksheet

Key word/phrase to identify a conflict: ____________________

COST FACTORS — ESTIMATED COST

1. Wasted time: $_________

salary/benefits per hour/day (150%)

2. Reduced decision quality: $_________

any decision made by you and/or others,

independently or jointly, affected by the conflict

3. Loss of skilled employees: $_________

cost of loss of human resource (150% of total

annual compensation)

4. Restructuring: $_________

inefficiency of work redesigned to accommodate conflict

5. Sabotage/theft/damage: $_________

equipment, work processes, reputations

6. Lowered job motivation: $_________

reduced performance/productivity

% reduction times salary

7. Lost work time: $_________

# of days lost at prorated daily salary

8. Health costs: $_________

stress related

insurance premiums linked to rate of claims

TOTAL COST: $_________

Chapter 4:

WHY DO WE SELF-DESTRUCT?

In win-lose conflict, I hurt myself as much as I hurt my Other. Why do I find it so difficult to approach my Other in a both-gain spirit?

The expression “both-gain” is used rather than the more familiar term “win-win” to avoid the connotation of competition that is inherent to “winning.” By implication, if there is a winner, there must also be a loser. The intent of this book is to suggest that both participants can gain – without losing and without defeating the Other.

A few key obstacles impair our ability to manage differences in ongoing interdependent relationships at work and home. These obstacles fall into two categories: “Wrong Reflexes” and “Illusions.” Together, they account for much of our puzzling human tendency to behave self-destructively, to

persist in win-lose struggles that damage our own self-interests.

We seem unable to learn a better way, despite a multitude of prior episodes in any lifetime that can only be termed failures to manage differences well.

Wrong Reflexes

The Way We Were

Our evolutionary legacy haunts us. In simpler times, before humans lived in communities larger than a few dozen, when organizations as workplaces had not yet been invented, and before humanistic values had developed, our reflexes served us well. In those times, it was adaptive to act on two assumptions:

1) that the best way to avoid danger was to escape, to remove ourselves from the presence of the threat,

2) and that, if escape were blocked, the best way to protect ourselves from a threat was to meet force with force in the hope of defeating the Other.

This pair of automatic assumptions is popularly known as the “flight or fight” instinct.

These reflexes were very adaptive for our pre-historic ancestors. The extent to which they were functioning determined how successfully the individual survived each day’s life-threatening crises, and had another opportunity to pass genetic characteristics on to descendants. In other words, these automatic responses in dangerous situations eventually became instinctive, part of our biological nature. Today, we are the descendants in an unbroken chain of millions of generations of individuals who survived the dangers long enough to procreate. We are the result of natural selection pressures that favored individuals who had what are, in modern life, “Wrong Reflexes.”

Times Have Changed

Why are these reflexes wrong today when they were right in the past? Much has changed. Today, the dangers posed by our co-workers, family, and friends are seldom physical threats. Escape (flight) is a costly option, since we are in long term interdependent relationships. We must go to our jobs tomorrow and work with the same people, then come home to the same spouse. Resolving a conflict by terminating these relationships is a drastic measure.

The alternative reflex, using force to defeat the opponent (fight), is no better. Physical assault is not acceptable in our culture as a means of dealing with people who differ from us. Threats, intimidation, and coercive force to win our way may succeed in the short run. But such tactics lay the groundwork for future retaliation by the other person. Coercion is a self-defeating tactic for handling differences in ongoing interdependent relationships – those that matter most at work and home.

But our bodies don't know that anything has changed since we lived in caves. Our genetic code, including the genes that control these behavioral mechanisms, is nearly identical to that of the individuals whose two million year old fossils are being unearthed in east Africa. Our reflexes – the ones we inherited from our survivor ancestors – still prompt us to act as if we are confronting a tiger on the plains of the ancient continent of Pangaea. We still reflexively interpret each confrontation as a win-lose encounter, where only one of us can win and the other must lose. We still reflexively respond to threats by trying to withdraw or escape from interaction. When trapped and escape is blocked, we still draw upon our resources to try to coerce the other into submission or compliance. This reaction is not conscious, and it is universal. Every biologically normal human being responds this way.

Modern Forms

Of course, we no longer fight with spears and flee into the forest. We use updated forms of those ancient impulses. Physical attack has been replaced by tactics like cutting off funds, overriding objections, and stating ultimatums. Physical flight has been replaced by avoiding meetings, failing to return phone calls, and watching television.

Now that we have evolved that most-human vehicle of language to express ourselves, we have developed a curious hybrid of fight and flight, “passive aggression.” Popular forms of passive aggression include making uncomplimentary remarks to associates about the Other, covertly undermining support of her projects, and finding excuses for not responding to a request. Having language enables us to inflict harm on the Other from a safe distance, concealing our aggressive motives.

Disguised in modern forms, our ancient impulses are still very much with us. These Wrong Reflexes are the two and only two means of coping with conflict that our instinct-driven bodies allow us to recognize:

1) Distancing (“flight”), an effort to withdraw from perceived threat – also called “Walk-aways”

2) Coercion (“fight”), an effort to defeat the Other – also called “Power-plays”

Illusions

Illusions are distorted perceptions that do not convey accurate information about the “external world,” as philosophers refer to all that is outside our skin. Our behavior is based on the assumption that our perceptions are accurate. A person who believes that he is an alien from Jupiter who is being persecuted by the CIA is behaving reasonably and appropriately – assuming it is true that he is actually an alien from Jupiter and is being persecuted by the CIA. Perception is the process of interpreting the external world so that we may act in it.

Whose Truth is True?

Perceptions are illusions when they are inaccurate interpretations of reality. But how do we know if our perceptions are accurate? When psychiatrists say they are inaccurate, we label the problem “mental illness.” When our co-worker or spouse says they are inaccurate, we call the problem “conflict.”

We generally accept majority-rule as a way of deciding what is external reality. That is, if most people say something is true, then it must be true. However, this way of deciding about reality is imperfect. The majority of Europeans believed the world was flat until fifteenth-century explorers discovered that we can go to the East by sailing West.

In interpersonal conflicts, we have only two versions of the truth to choose between – yours and mine – and we may vigorously debate whose version is the correct one. Appeals for support by majority-rule (“everyone agrees with me, just ask around”) seldom succeed in convincing the Other to accept the correctness of our position. Employing coercive tactics – Power-plays – to “win” the conflict between your truth and mine, especially when there is no mutually acceptable independent arbiter, may make us feel good for as long as we imagine that we are winning. But it also undermines our own interests – we squander any support and value that the relationship might have had for us. So, to the degree that we harm our own interests, we self-destruct.

Illusions are universal – that is, they occur in everyone. So, we cannot claim that they result from the Other's psychological problems. They are normal, an integral part of our biological perceptual mechanisms – we are simply built that way.

Three illusions shed especially revealing light on how we self-destruct in interpersonal conflict:

The “Win-Lose Illusion”

The “Bad Person Illusion”

The “Boulder-in-the-Road Illusion”

The Win-Lose Illusion

Our needs are fundamentally incompatible;

only one of us can prevail.

Some authors urge us to appreciate that conflict provides a valuable opportunity for creative problem-solving, synergy, and personal growth. My chosen career is conflict resolution, and I am regarded by some as an expert in the field. Lapsing into a moment of candor, I disclose to you now that I personally have great difficulty, while engaged in conflict, staying mindful of these virtues. Like other fallible human beings, I initially react to conflicts as if they are win-lose situations. My Other and I argue different positions on an issue, and I assume that the incompatibility of our needs means that the outcome must necessarily favor one of us over the other. Pending calmer reflection, I assume that only one of us can be right, only one of us can get what we want – the other must lose. Only with great mental effort can I imagine the possibility that neither of us must lose, that a both-gain outcome is available to us. Until then, the possibility of a both-gain outcome does not enter my view of the realm of possibilities. The illusion is that a win-lose outcome is inevitable when, in fact, both-gain alternatives nearly always exist.

I don't believe I am unique in this odd blindness. Nor do I believe that transcending the Win-Lose Illusion is easy. Nor, I'm afraid, is clear vision of both-gain possibilities within the reach of the vast majority of us. I believe it is a futile exercise to suggest that we educate the population of the planet to recognize the possibility of both-gain outcomes to our interpersonal conflicts. That would be swimming upstream a torrent of biological imperatives.

But all is not gloom. It may be true that the Win-Lose Illusion will regularly blind us as we struggle to manage differences with others day-to-day. Happily, however, success in using Self Mediation does not require that either you or your Other is able to avoid this troublesome trickster of perception.

The Bad Person Illusion

Our conflict is the direct result of your incompetence, ignorance, meanness, or other defect; it can only be resolved if you recognize and correct your defects.

When we have managed our differences poorly—that is, by means of the Wrong Reflexes—certain attitudes about our Other become entrenched over time and seem absolutely correct. We grow to think that he is bad in some way – mean, corrupt, immoral, malicious, stupid. In our more generous moments, we may kindly offer the concession that the Other's behavior is due to being simply crazy or disturbed, suggesting that she is not fully in control of her behavior.

By believing that the conflict is a direct consequence of our Other's personal defects, we are able to absolve ourselves of responsibility for contributing to the problem. We comfort ourselves with the belief that the other person is at fault, and that we are innocent, hapless victims.

A Two-Way Street

But notice a curious fact about the Bad Person Illusion: It is almost always reciprocal. That is, each participant believes the other is at fault. The regularity of the Bad Person Illusion being a two-way street suggests that it may not be true that one of the persons is in fact evil or crazy. To believe that the cause of our conflict lies in inherently bad personal characteristics of the Other is a distortion of reality – the cause is differentness, not badness.

Let’s assume for a moment that our Other is indeed bad. Does acting on that value judgment lead us toward resolution? Since he probably feels quite the same about us, holding us in low esteem as we do him, he is not likely to accept our judgment and acquiesce to our positions on the disputed issues. So, insisting that the Other accept blame simply doesn’t work, regardless of how sure we are of his faults or even of how correct our perceptions are. Negotiations in an atmosphere of Bad Person judgments only lead to impasse.

Former President Jimmy Carter was criticized by some for treating military leader, General Raoul Cedras, as a legitimate player during his successful mediation to resolve the crisis in Haiti in 1995. The national consensus was that Gen. Cedras was simply a cruel dictator, undeserving of the legitimacy and respect shown him by President Carter. But Carter wisely appealed to the military leader’s “sense of honor, sense of dignity.” He knew that people don’t want to participate in problem-solving dialogue when you insult them. Carter’s mediation succeeded because he steadfastly focused on the need for reconciliation, avoiding the temptation of treating Cedras as a Bad Person (The Carter Center News, July 24, 1995).

Self-fulfilling Prophesy

Over the course of a chronic conflict, the Bad Person belief may seem to come true. Our self-protective, defensive behavior provokes the Other into exhibiting “bad” behavior—just as her retaliatory behavior provokes us. Under the stress of the moment, we may act crazy, stupid, or mean – we do “bad” things. So, the illusion becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy.

But even when we behave cruelly or senselessly, we justify our own “bad” behavior as resulting from having been mercilessly provoked by the Other. We insist that it is atypical of us to act that way, whereas the bad behavior exhibited by the Other reveals deep flaws in her personality. We find it difficult to regard the Other's behavior in that same, understanding light.

The Bad Person Illusion, then, is the distorted image that the Other's behavior derives from his flawed character. His behavior is not interpreted, as is more often the case, as a natural, normal response to the conflict between us. Even when there is some majority-rule support that our version of reality is correct, such as a psychiatrist's diagnosis, the illusion still plays a role. It causes us to exaggerate the difference between us and our Other in terms of how justifiable and situation-dependent the “bad” behaviors are. That is, we excuse ourselves but are unable to excuse our Other.

An Illustration

(This illustration is adapted from text prepared for the South African edition of Managing Differences, published by William Waterman Publications, Rivonia, South Africa, 1995.)

It may be difficult for many readers to refrain from applying the Bad Person Illusion to the former apartheid government of South Africa. How could a fair-minded and reasonable person not regard the oppression of millions of people through enforcement of discriminatory and dehumanizing laws as anything other than evil? Would we not all agree that the leaders of the apartheid regime were either evil or crazy or both? Were they not “bad people?”

Interestingly, adherents of apartheid have held a quite reciprocal perception. Many supporters of the previous regime no doubt regarded black people negatively—as uncivilized, unintelligent, untrustworthy—as “bad people.” And yet, by any conventional diagnosis of mental health, these adherents were not “insane.” And, since they loved their children and families, had sincere and meaningful friendships, and cared about the well-being of others, were they “evil?” Although it may strain our objectivity to do so, we must acknowledge that supporters of apartheid behaved reasonably and appropriately within the context of their system of values and perception of the world.

So the great social conflict of South Africa exemplifies a reciprocal perception that the other side is by its nature, evil—the Bad Person Illusion on a national scale.

Designed to achieve interpersonal, not national, peace, Self Mediation is surely inadequate for resolving a conflict of such magnitude. Nevertheless, in hindsight we can see that the apartheid policy of non-communication with black leaders, which rested largely on the perception of their being “bad people,” precluded the possibility of genuine resolution, just as the Wrong Reflex of Distancing from relationship has that same effect on prospects for interpersonal peace.

Is the Bad Person Illusion a fatal flaw of human nature that makes it impossible for us to manage our differences constructively? Fortunately, not. Using Self Mediation does not require that we or our Others be able to free ourselves from this most human perceptual trap. We have the power to choose to communicate, even when our perceptions are contaminated by the Bad Person Illusion.

The Boulder-in-the-Road Illusion

Our differences are irreconcilable; agreement is impossible.

When we encounter a difference with our boss, spouse or co-worker, and when agreement or cooperation is required to proceed further, an especially disabling misperception arises. It often seems that differences between us are so huge – his character is so devoid of virtue, she is so mean, our values are so opposite – that reconciliation is impossible. A “boulder in the road” blocks any further progress. Faced with the hopelessness of this impasse, we may feel forced to choose between the two Wrong Reflexes – either withdraw from interaction (Distancing), or muster our resources to defeat the Other's resistance (Coercion). Tragically, limiting ourselves to these two ineffective options can lead to escalated hostilities and even divorce, job termination, or pointless legal entanglement.

Why do we perceptually exaggerate the difficulty, to the point of impossibility, of reconciling our differences? Why do we see no way around the boulder in the road? It sometimes seems that the only thing that can be agreed upon is that agreement is impossible.

In fact, there nearly always is a way around the boulder. Rarely are the underlying self-interests of each participant exactly opposite on any issue of genuine importance. Even when self-interests are incompatible, the search for reasonable compromise can find a better path for each participant than continued conflict. My fellow mediators will confirm that the parties in most disputes in which we become involved are initially deeply pessimistic about the likelihood of success. Nevertheless, mediation achieves a both-gain solution in nearly every interpersonal (two-person) conflict.

The Challenge to Interpersonal Peacemaking

So, we see how we are, at times, victims of our own instincts. We labor under illusions that one must win and one must lose, that the problem would be solved if only our stubborn Other would admit fault, and, failing these unlikely outcomes, our differences are irreconcilable.

To cope with this awful state of affairs, we see only options: Distancing to keep things smooth, or, when interaction is required, Coercion as a desperate effort to win or at least to avoid losing.

There is an alternative. It is remarkably simple and effective, even though our instinctive blinders often prevent us from seeing it. Using it can produce a surprising transformation that allows reconciliation of differences without withdrawing, without over-powering, and without losing. There is a way around the boulder in the road. Self Mediation helps you and your Other find another route.

An Attitude Shift: Breakthrough

When communicating in search of solutions, our initial challenge is to accept the possible existence of a both-gain solution. We need to create a climate where both participants can express a shared interest in resolving the problem in a fair, if yet undiscovered, way. We need a shift in attitudes from “you-against-me” to “us-against-the-problem.” In this more trusting climate, fair compromise and mutual concessions can be more safely discussed. Such an attitude shift would truly be a breakthrough.

How can this Breakthrough be achieved? The design of Self Mediation prevents the Wrong Reflexes from occurring, defusing them as “bombs” that destroy dialogue. The attitude shift does not result from persuasion or reasoning, but from psychological forces toward harmony (to be discussed in chapter 19) that are harnessed by the special dialogue occurring in Step 3.

Once this attitude shift occurs, a solution can be found. If a win-win (both-get-everything-we-want) solution exists in the realm of possibilities, it can be mutually sought when we see ourselves as cooperating partners in the search. If only a more modest both-gain outcome is possible, we can more safely make reasonable compromises in the more trusting climate that Self Mediation produces. In either case, a way has been found around the boulder in the road that does not require identifying a loser.

Chapter 5:

THE THREE LEVELS OF CONFLICT

Some conflicts are hardly noticeable as they ebb and flow through our daily social encounters. Others grow into intense disputes that spawn interpersonal tragedies. The severity of conflict ranges from insignificant Blips through a middle range of Clashes to severe Crises that threaten the life of the relationship.

Just as a golfer selects the proper club for the shot, and a mechanic chooses the right tool for the job, different levels of conflict call for different strategies. Self Mediation is designed for conflicts that are more troublesome than passing minor annoyances, but that have not reached crisis proportions. This chapter will describe the level of conflict that this communication tool is designed to resolve – Level 2 Clashes. It will also offer suggestions for dealing constructively with Blips and Crises.

LEVEL 1: BLIPS

Blips are inevitable. And some people would find life without Blips boring. For most, few days spent in intensely interdependent interaction with people are entirely free of minor annoyances. But these Blips pose no threat to the relationship, nor do they produce disharmony that breaks down teamwork and blocks satisfaction of needs.

Workplace Example

Jean, a co-worker, has used your coffee cup to water plants in the office. You have asked her to find another water vessel, but this morning she used it again. If you are otherwise cordial and cooperative, this annoyance probably can be handled by reminding Jean of your wishes. A special meeting as called for by Self Mediation is probably unnecessary.

Family Example

Pat, your spouse, occasionally leaves dirty dishes in the sink, despite your request that they be placed in the dishwasher. Usually your request is honored, but this evening you noticed that Pat had left a drinking glass on the counter before going out to exercise. Unless this irritant masks more significant divisive issues in your relationship, another brief mention will probably suffice.

Still, Blips can grow more severe if poorly handled over time. How can we prevent the needless escalation of Level 1 Blips into Level 2 Clashes or Level 3 Crises?

The simplest advice is to routinely refrain from resorting to those outdated Wrong Reflexes – Distancing (Walk-aways) and Coercion (Power-plays) – at any time. These behaviors antagonize other people, and, even more importantly, they prevent the communication that is necessary to limit misunderstandings. In other words:

1) Do not ever walk out, hang up, or otherwise use termination of contact as a retaliatory tactic.

2) Do not ever use threats, intimidation or coercion to pressure your Other to comply with your wishes.

See Part 6: Common Courtesy for more about these suggestions.

The Gift Exchange

As Blips accumulate and tension mounts, communication breaks down. Before Level 1 Blips become Level 2 Clashes, you can use an intriguing behavioral device to trigger a release of tension in your relationship.

The device consists of initiating an unexpected “gift” – a conciliatory gesture – to the other person. Invite your co-worker to lunch or stop by his office to ask about his children. Give your spouse a warm hug, bring home flowers, or offer to cook dinner. An automatic psychological reflex causes friendly gestures like these to spark a reciprocal gesture – a “gift exchange.” If a genuine gift exchange happens, tension can quickly subside and trust may be renewed.

The reflex that prompts your Other to reciprocate your gift is present in everyone. However, certain personality factors can block it from occurring in some people. So, you cannot be sure it will work every time you try it. But your gift costs little, and it can trigger a valuable shift in your relationship from distance to closeness. You accept the risk that your gift will be rejected, that you might be seen as giving in, or as setting a precedent that you do not want to be obligated to in the future. Taking this risk requires courage. Paradoxically, allowing ourselves to appear weak by our vulnerability to rejection requires strength.

What happens if your Other does not return your gift? If your initiatives do not trigger a response after two or three attempts, then it probably will not do so in the future.

A note for business readers: The dynamics of the gift-exchange are psychological and emotional, not rational and logical. The impulse to reciprocate is an unconscious response. In business negotiations, bargaining strategies are often quite conscious. The gift-exchange may not work because skilled negotiators are often trained to divert psychological inducements to make concessions. Although the gift-exchange can be effectively used in business negotiations, be especially careful not to initiate a gift that weakens your bargaining position.

LEVEL 2: CLASHES

Self Mediation, the central message of this book, is designed to help us manage differences in good relationships. Clashes happen in good relationships.

Despite our best efforts, Blips sometimes accumulate and grow into Clashes. How do we know when the line has been crossed? Indications are:

· Repeated disputes about the same issue, perhaps spread over days or weeks.

· Arguing over an increasing number of issues.

· Feeling less cooperative toward the Other.

· Feeling less trusting of the Other's sincere good will.

· Remaining angry at the Other for a longer period, perhaps hours or days.

· Beginning to privately question the value of the relationship.

· And, most indicatively, the habitual use of Coercion and/or Distancing tactics in your interactions.

Workplace Example

Your colleague on a project team has made a number of mistakes that you have worked overtime to correct. When confronted, he shrugs it off, dismissing your complaints as unimportant. Your resentment grows as you are unable to get him to acknowledge your needs.

Family Example

You and your spouse have differing styles of handling money. You like to budget carefully and save for special events and vacations. He spends more freely and does not keep track of where money goes. You have had numerous arguments about this, but the pattern continues. Lately, you notice that you both avoid discussing any subject that pertains to family finances.

Part 2 of this book will describe in detail how to use Self Mediation to produce solutions to the issues on which you and your Other clash.

LEVEL 3: CRISES

Most of us, at points in life, encounter differences so deep that even regular communication as Self Mediation suggests will not produce satisfaction. Crises call for more help than this self-help procedure can provide. How can we distinguish Crises from Clashes? Indications are:

· You have decided to terminate the relationship.

· You fear that your Other will terminate the relationship.

· You sense that the relationship is psychologically unhealthy, and fear that you are vulnerable to emotional harm by remaining in it.

· There is a risk of physical violence.

· Vulnerable people, especially children, are being emotionally, physically, or economically hurt by the conflict.

Workplace Example

Your boss rated you “unsatisfactory” in your latest performance appraisal. Believing that the evaluation is unfair, you have attempted to speak with your boss, only to be told that it is a closed issue. Your resentment about not being given an opportunity to rebut the negative appraisal is eroding your loyalty to your employer.

Option: Request assistance from a qualified personnel representative or ombudsman who can mediate the dispute.

Family Example

Despite several discussions using Self Mediation you and your spouse remain deeply divided on whether to have a child. You feel you need a child to make your life feel complete, and your spouse feels that a child would only interfere with career progress. Whenever the issue is mentioned, you feel deep resentment and despair. You are seriously considering divorce.

Option: See a counselor or family therapist to explore the emotional needs underlying the issue of whether to have children.

What can you do about such severe conflicts? In the most pessimistic analysis, intentionally using the Wrong Reflexes as a coping strategy are options that are still available to you:

Distancing. You may choose to put enough emotional, physical, and functional distance between yourself and your Other to stay safe.

Coercion. You may choose to use threat and manipulation to avoid losing what may be a continuous win-lose conflict.

Of course, neither of these options can bring you satisfaction in the relationship, and with time are likely to lead to further deterioration. Before resigning yourself to such an unhappy fate, consider more constructive solutions:

· Use a neutral mediator (see Part 4: Third-Party Mediation), and/or

· Use a counselor or therapist to gain emotional support and explore how you can best deal with the difficult situation you face.

Crises are dangerous. You may face a painful choice of terminating the relationship or staying in a situation that holds no prospect of satisfaction. Encouragingly, in my work as a professional mediator, I notice that many people judge conflicts as crises when in fact they are resolvable – the Boulder-in-the-Road Illusion at play with our perceptions. I suggest thinking objectively about your situation, drawing on the information in chapter 15 (When It Works, When It Won't), before deciding how to handle it.

Chapter 6:

A skeleton view of

SELF MEDIATION: A 4-Step Method for Building Better Relationships

The next several chapters will examine in detail each step of Self Mediation. Before venturing into the trees, let’s take another look at the overview of the forest to get our bearings.

Step 1: FIND A TIME TO TALK

The Approach

The Issue Statement

The Request

The Sale (if needed)

The Cardinal Rules (if needed)

The Time & Place

Step 2: PLAN THE CONTEXT

Removing the “land mines” from your time-and-place environment

Step 3: TALK IT OUT

The Opening

Express appreciation

Express optimism

Reminders: The Cardinal Rules

State the issue

The Invitation

The Dialogue

Task #1: Stay engaged in the Essential Process

Task #2: Support Conciliatory Gestures

The Breakthrough

Step 4: MAKE A DEAL

Balanced

Behaviorally specific

Written

Chapter 15:

WHEN IT WORKS, WHEN IT WON'T

I herald bad news and good news. Bad news: Self Mediation does not work every time. Good news: After you read this chapter, you will know when it works and when it won't.

The Clashes arising from differences in most relationships can be managed satisfactorily by this method. Some conflicts, however, lack certain requirements that are necessary for success. This chapter describes the eight prerequisites to confidence that Self Mediation will work.

Personality Factors

When involved in “personality clashes,” we often conclude that the conflict is irresolvable due to the Other's personality – the Bad Person Illusion. In truth, certain personality factors can indeed impinge on the method, making it less effective. So, some relevant personality factors will be mentioned as we list the eight prerequisites.

Self Mediation is designed for use when all of the following are true:

Prerequisite #1:

It Is a Two-Person Conflict

Some of the components of Self Mediation are used in team building, family consultation, intergroup problem-solving, and labor contract negotiations, to name a few occasions where conflicts need resolution. However, when there are several conflicting parties, or when a party to the conflict consists of more than one person, a more complex resolution strategy is usually necessary.

Prerequisite #2:

The Two People Have an

Ongoing, Interdependent Relationship

The participants must be in an important relationship that is not expected to end in the near future. You may be annoyed by the rudeness of a bank teller or the impatience of a telephone operator, but these relationships are not ongoing. Nor do you and he depend on each other for satisfaction of needs, except in very limited or infrequent transactions.

Self Mediation is normally inappropriate and unnecessary when a relationship exists only for the negotiation of one or a few issues, such as the purchase price of an item.

When there is no need to interact, there is no problem. Examples: A divorced couple with no children, and employees whose jobs do not require that they work together. The individuals may not like each other, but their conflicts can best be managed by avoiding contact. Here, there is little consequence to using Wrong Reflex #1: Distancing. Dislike between people who have no needs that the other must satisfy is not an interpersonal conflict.

If a specific situation has come to mind while reading this section that you wish were resolved, but that does not seem to meet this prerequisite, then I suspect you are in fact interdependent. The needs you have of the Other may just be undefined.

Prerequisite #3:

Both People Are Present and Involved in the Dialogue

It takes two hands to clap. An interpersonal conflict is a dyadic, or two-person, process. One person can solve a personal problem; it takes two to solve an interpersonal problem. Unless both parts of the dyad are involved, the problem cannot be solved – the clapping makes no sound. The amount of interest each of you has in resolving the conflict may be unequal, and your levels of enthusiasm for talking about it may differ. If you question your Other's willingness to be involved, review the minimum requirements of your partner as discussed in chapter 8. Surprisingly little commitment is expected of her to make Self Mediation work.

Personality factor: Schizoid Compromise

Some people's experience in early childhood taught them that relationships are dangerous. They learned that being vulnerable to others carries a high risk of being hurt. Trusting brought abuse. Wanting love brought rejection.

The hurt that relationships can cause children is of two types: Invasion (being emotionally suffocated, humiliated, battered) and abandonment (being left needy, unloved without emotional contact with others). Adults who suffered as children in these ways unconsciously stay emotionally distant from others as a protection against more hurt.

Of course, all of us keep a certain distance, fearing vulnerability, yet needing interpersonal contact. By the time we reach adulthood, we have usually found a comfortable compromise between emotional contact and distance in our relationships. In psychotherapy, this comfort level is called the “schizoid compromise.”

Due to having suffered traumatic invasion or abandonment as children, some people are unable to tolerate the anxiety aroused by sustained face-to-face contact with their Other, as required in the Dialogue. Being confronted with the Other's anger, and having the comfortingly familiar Wrong Reflexes outlawed by the Cardinal Rules, can arouse intolerable fears. The primitive anxiety of being invaded and destroyed by the Other's anger, or of being abandoned and losing the relationship, can be too much to bear. Although Dialogues can be tense encounters for anyone, some people find it impossible to remain engaged in uninterrupted issue-focused conversation. The more emotionally distant is one's schizoid compromise, the less able is the person to stay in the Essential Process, and therefore the effectiveness of Self Mediation is diminished.

The schizoid compromise doesn't influence only intimate and family relationships. This anxiety-regulating mechanism controls our behavior during conflicts in the workplace just as it does in marriages.

Prerequisite #4:

Each Person Is Able to Refrain from Physical Violence

The Dialogue calls for participants to join in verbal, not physical, confrontation. Verbal aggression is permissible, in lieu of more healthy assertiveness, as discussed early in the chapter on skills for dialogue. Physical aggression, however, is clearly impermissible. Not only is violent assault destructive to relationships, it is also illegal. Each person must be able to participate in discussion without fear that the Other's anger may erupt in physical attack.

Personality factor: Impulsivity

Most personality traits are present to some degree in all of us. “Impulsivity” is one such trait – the degree to which we have difficulty refraining from acting on our impulses. If your Other has a history of impulsive violence, she may be unable to tolerate the stress of the Dialogue without violent outburst. You may not wish to risk provoking physical violence. In particular, people who have been physically injured by their spouses or another individual in the past should probably not use Self Mediation with that person. Instead, counseling and/or legal remedies are advised.

Prerequisite #5:

Power Is Not Severely Unbalanced, and

Neither Person Characteristically Abuses Power

Power is a characteristic of relationships, not of individuals. It is the capacity of one person to influence the behavior of the Other. This ability to influence the Other's behavior is related directly to the strength of the Other's needs. If Juan desperately needs Karen's support, then Karen is able to induce Juan to make concessions.

Power is nearly always mutual – each can affect the other. Hardly ever is one entirely powerless, although at times we may feel so because we fail to recognize our options.

Just because the power in your relationship with your Other is mutual, it is not necessarily balanced. The low-power partner (the one with the greatest needs of the Other), is most vulnerable in the Dialogue. Especially when power imbalance is great, your Other's promise to comply with Cardinal Rule #2 (No Power-plays) is critically important. If you cannot trust the Other to accept this Cardinal Rule and not use the power at his disposal, then entering into a Dialogue might be risky.

Personality factor: Sadism

Some people derive pleasure from using power gratuitously to hurt others who are relatively helpless to respond. A pattern of such behavior is called sadism. Sadistic behavior is often associated with low self-esteem. That is, behaving sadistically produces a pleasurable feeling of power that compensates for their feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy.

For example, let's say you are in conflict with your boss and are wondering whether to suggest a meeting to talk it out. You know from past experience that she fires people for “making waves” or punishes “troublemakers” by assigning undesirable tasks. She then likes to make a public display of the punishment around the office as an example to others. Your boss seems to enjoy wielding coercive, manipulative power. If you have no recourse to protect yourself from or deter her possible abuses, then using Self Mediation may not be prudent.

Another example: Your wife receives a paycheck while you, caring for small children, are not employed outside the home. Let's say that your wife controls all family finances and gives you a weekly amount to buy food. Further, let's say that in the past your wife has withheld the food allowance so that you and the children do not have enough to eat. As in the case of impulsiveness, professional help is recommended.

These two examples illustrate both power imbalance and sadistic abuse of power, as well as uncertain commitment to Cardinal Rule #2. If your Other has both the ability and willingness to coerce or intimidate you into submission to his demands, then using Self Mediation is risky. The method requires that both partners act according to the Cardinal Rules. Both participants must be willing to forego using coercive force, and to engage in the Dialogue as an alternative way of managing your differences.

Prerequisite #6:

Neither Person Is Addicted to a Chemical Substance

People who are alcoholic or dependent on other drugs suffer from a condition that jeopardizes the success of Self Mediation. Certainly, holding a Dialogue would be pointless if either person is intoxicated or under the influence of drugs. But the dependency does not vanish just because the person is not intoxicated at the time. The dependency syndrome itself impairs the method by disabling certain of the psychological forces toward harmony.

Personality factor: Addictive Disorder

People having the so-called “addictive personality” often hear an internal script telling them, “Nothing is ever enough.” A desperate need to become satiated drives their compulsive consumption of the substance of their addiction. The problem this chronic hunger poses for Self Mediation is that an addictive Other will be difficult to satisfy with any amount of conciliation. The moment of Breakthrough will then be very difficult, perhaps impossible, to reach. The addicted person (who is not recovering or in treatment) may complicate the process by employing the “covering up” behavior habitually used in hiding the addiction from family and associates.

Prerequisite #7:

Neither Person Suffers from

Severe Emotional Disturbance

“Emotional disturbance” is a loose collection of personality factors that impinge on the effectiveness of Self Mediation. In particular, people who are acutely paranoid (a neurosis or psychosis) or sociopathic (a character disorder) have distorted perceptions of their relationships that make using the method ill-advised.

All of us employ defenses against anxiety that distort our perceptions of social reality. So even normal, well-adjusted people may occasionally exhibit behavioral symptoms similar to paranoia or sociopathy. These normal ego-defenses are especially likely during periods of high stress.

But this so-called “normal neurosis” does not disable Self Mediation. Most people who have emotional problems severe enough to render the Dialogue ineffective have some history of psychiatric hospitalization or closely supervised outpatient treatment. Our personality quirks and maladjustments are most apparent to the people closest to us. Just because your Other may sometimes seem “crazy” does not mean the method will not work.

You may consider yourself unqualified to assess whether these emotional disturbances are present in your Other. Even if you are in doubt, you can probably try Self Mediation without great risk. If it doesn't work for these reasons, damage is not likely. Your Dialogue will simply be another frustrating argument that may seem not unlike many previous encounters.

Prerequisite #8:

Both People Speak a Common Language

Rarely could two people have an ongoing interdependent relationship in workplace or home settings who do not regularly communicate in a common language. However, if Clashes between people who cannot communicate verbally were to arise, Self Mediation would be difficult to carry out. After all, the Dialogue does entail face-to-face communication.

All Of The Above

After reading this chapter, you may be thinking, “All of my conflicts are with sociopathic, sadistic, paranoid drug addicts who have me trapped under their thumb.” If such a thought discourages you from using Self Mediation in a relationship that matters to you, refresh your understanding of the Bad Person Illusion in chapter 4.

Chapter 16:

HELPING OTHERS MANAGE THEIR DIFFERENCES

Writers in the field of dispute resolution define mediation in various ways. Without known exception, every definition involves a third party – someone other than the disputants themselves. Here is a fairly conventional way of understanding mediation:

“The role of a neutral third party in facilitating the search for mutually acceptable, self-determined agreements between two or more disputants.”

But you have noticed that Self Mediation does not involve a third party. Rather, the essential functions of a neutral third party are incorporated into the role of the initiator of the method. So, the initiator plays two roles:

1) Negotiator – an advocate of her own self-interests

2) Mediator – an advocate of both-gain solution to the disputed issues

All of us occasionally observe conflicts between others in which we are not “principal” parties – that is, we are not personally in dispute. Yet, we may have some responsibility for, or interest in, the outcome. Managers need their employees to work together collaboratively but have no personal stake in the issues that they dispute. Parents want their children to cooperate but are not personally invested in what the kids are arguing about.

This chapter explains how the four steps of Self Mediation can be reframed so we can act as a neutral third party to help others manage their differences. Since it is not really a “do-it-yourself” process when applied by a third party, we will refer to it in this chapter as “Simple Mediation.”

The Active-Passive Debate

In mediation, as in other professional fields, practitioners disagree. One debate among mediators concerns how active or passive the mediator should be during meetings with disputants. That is, does success depend on the substantive contributions of the mediator (the “active mediator” argument)? Or, does success arise from factors other than the mediator's expert knowledge about the substantive issues in dispute (the “passive mediator” argument)? If a combination, in what proportion do these two elements contribute to success in finding solutions?

An important consideration in the active-passive debate is the “structure” of the parties. Structure refers to

· the size of the parties – whether they are individuals, groups, organizations or nations;

· the number of separate contesting parties; and

· the degree of consensus of opinion within each party that permits it to speak with one voice through a leader or representative.

The Simplest Structure

Forms of mediation are applied to complex structures, such as negotiating international peace treaties, and developing a company's strategic plan that involves several department heads. Mediation is also used with two individuals, such as co-workers and marital partners. Clearly, the two-person relationship has the most simple structure possible.

Simple Mediation can be simple because it is designed specifically for managing differences only in two-person relationships. Applying the method to more complex situations calls for careful attention to the implications of other structural features, which falls outside the scope of this book.

Where Does Resolution Come From?

Back to the active-passive debate for a moment. The argument reduces to this basic question: “Are the forces that lead to resolution of interpersonal conflict introduced by the mediator, or do they exist within the pair relationship itself?” If the mediator produces the resolution, then the forces are external to the pair – this requires active mediation. If the resolution evolves as a natural product of communication between the parties under the special environment that mediation provides, then the forces are internal to the pair – this permits passive mediation.

My experience, as well as substantial research and theory in behavioral science, suggests that passive mediation works best when structure is simple. That is, the forces that lead to resolution of two-person conflicts are resident in the relationship between the partners, ready to come forth when conditions are favorable. Mediation is an opportunity for structured communication that allows those forces to emerge and take effect. These are described in detail in Chapter 19: “Forces Toward Harmony.”

The Role of the Mediator

So, we conclude that passive mediation is effective in resolving two-person conflicts. Since we recognize that Self Mediation can produce interpersonal peace without a third party, you might be wondering, “Of what use, then, is a mediator?”

A third party can perform several useful functions that help Simple Mediation resolve disputes more effectively than when the four-step method is applied as Self Mediation, which involves only the two disputing parties:

1) A reluctant disputant can be more effectively persuaded to participate if the Dialogue is proposed by a third party than if proposed by her opponent. The mistrustful climate of most interpersonal conflicts leads one to suspect that her Other is driven by manipulative, self-serving motives in suggesting that they meet to discuss contested issues. When proposed by a neutral mediator who has no personal stake in the outcome, this suspiciousness and distrust is minimized.

2) The mediator can exercise more control in ensuring that a participant who becomes frustrated with the process will not break Cardinal Rule #1 by withdrawing or walking out. When the Dialogue is under way without a mediator, the person who has initiated it is vulnerable to his Other's reneging on the commitment to stay in the meeting until it is concluded. A mediator can more forcefully insist that a wavering participant stay in the room and continue discussion.

3) The mediator can exercise more control in ensuring that neither partner violates Cardinal Rule #2 by employing coercive force or intimidating threats to defeat her foe. Indeed, some lopsided power conflicts may be resolvable only by involving a third party.

4) The mediator, being less emotionally involved, can listen more attentively for conciliatory gestures. When such a gesture occurs, the mediator can bring attention to it with a comment like “It sounded like you made an offer to compromise a moment ago. Could you say more about that?” or “Did you notice that Susan said she felt bad for you?” This kind of supportive attention can be difficult for a participant to give, especially when he is angry.

5) When the Breakthrough occurs, the mediator can more effectively help frame an agreement than if deal-making is left to the partners. The mediator may be able to think more clearly about the necessary elements of a behaviorally specific agreement than can a participant who remains emotionally upset. Also, urgings by a mediator to correct a flaw in an agreement are met with less defensive resistance than when weak spots are noted by a foe.

6) Finally, a mediator can make use of what social psychologists call the “audience effect” in following up with participants at some agreed time in the future. The audience effect accounts for why participants feel more obligated to a neutral third party in living up to their part of an agreement than they do to their counterpart in conflict. Follow-up by the mediator typically consists of:

A) Meeting again with the participants at a specific time agreed to by all at the close of the Dialogue.

B) Asking at the follow-up meeting, “How is it working?” to prompt the participants to review the agreement.

C) Helping to fine tune the agreement if necessary.

D) Congratulating the partners on their successful efforts to bring harmony to their relationship.

Who Can Mediate?

Simple Mediation is generic. That is, it can be used to resolve any two-person conflict that meets the prerequisites in chapter 15. The only requirements of the mediator who employs the process are that she

1) is accepted by both participants into the third party role. This acceptance is most likely when the mediator

2) is perceived by each partner as

A) relatively neutral and unbiased, meaning that she is not an advocate of either person, and

B) having some base of power to enter the role of third party with the two people in conflict. This power can reside in either

a) being perceived as a competent mediator, or

b) having authority to require that a Dialogue occur, even if one or both participants are reluctant to meet.

3) refrain from interfering with the Essential Process during the Dialogue. Mediators are best able to avoid this common mistake who

A) know the procedure of Simple Mediation,

B) understand some of the behavioral science that explains how the method produces harmony, and

C) have confidence that the method works.

Low-Skill Mediation?

Many people are surprised by how little skill and knowledge are required of the mediator. Surprise may arise from the popular belief that the mediator's personal abilities account for more of the results of mediation than is argued here.

On a cautionary note, however, I recommend that you at least be experienced in using the four-step method as Self Mediation before undertaking a third party effort. Although it is simple to understand, pitfalls can trip the new mediator that only experience can teach her to avoid. I am reminded of the saying, “Good judgment comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgment.” Give yourself several opportunities to practice bad judgment in self-mediation before offering your good judgment to others.

If you are now a mediator who holds different beliefs about your role than those presented here, I do not expect you to be convinced so readily that some of your favorite mediation tools are less than vital. And, please remember that Self Mediation, and its Simple Mediation variant, are designed for self-help, not for professional service. I do not suggest that more complex and demanding mediation tools may not be helpful and at times required. Mediators are eagerly invited to test this simple model and report their experiences to me c/o the publisher.

Managerial Mediation

As long as the basic mediator requirements spelled out above are met, then mediators can assist pairs of people wherever they find them. Simple Mediation can help people manage differences and build better relationships in several sectors of life.

Workplace conflict is of special interest. For over fifteen years I have developed and promoted Simple Mediation as a powerful form of participative management – called “Managerial Mediation.” Increasingly, managers and team leaders are using mediation to solve productivity problems resulting from poor communication and cooperation between employees – estimated to account for 65% of job performance deficiency.

Clearly it is impractical to train managers extensively in mediation techniques – managing workplace conflict is rarely a primary job function. Nevertheless, managers can learn Simple Mediation by reading this book or attending a one-day presentation of the Manager-as-Mediator Seminar – a very cost-effective investment in people-skills for the workplace.

Managers hold a significant advantage, compared with mediators who are not in roles of authority. If necessary, the manager can override employees' reluctance to participate by pointing to the impact on productivity resulting from their difficulty in working cooperatively. Because the managerial mediation session is a business meeting, not a discussion of personal issues, it is a powerful means of solving organizational problems.

Non-supervisory staff may also apply Simple Mediation in the workplace – personnel specialists, employee relations staff, internal organization development consultants, employee assistance program counselors, and training consultants. And, Simple Mediation is an especially useful skill for members of self-directed work teams.

The Better Way

The field of mediation has expanded tremendously since 1980. Modern society is discovering that there is a better way to resolve conflicts than the means that we have relied upon throughout history. Although forms of third party intervention in disputes have existed for centuries, the need has never been greater than now for peaceful ways to manage human differences.

Chapter 17:

INTRODUCTION TO

THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE OF

DIFFERENCE-MANAGEMENT

As discussed in chapter 2, Self Mediation is a behavioral prescription. Follow the prescription and reap the results. It works, even if you don't know the theory that explains why it works.

So why is a section about behavioral science included in this book? Some readers are mediators, consultants, students, and academicians who have a professional interest in theories of difference-management. Other readers just enjoy learning new ways of understanding their own behavior.

If you have no professional or academic interest in this field, but simply would like practical guidance in building better relationships, you might choose to skip ahead to chapter 21. Just use Self Mediation as it has already been presented. But those of you whose interest extends beyond a personal one will find Part 5 of the book of special benefit.

Mental Maps

Each one of us has, whether or not we are aware of it, a “mental map” that guides our behavior throughout each day. A mental map is a system of beliefs and assumptions that provides a sense of orderliness and predictability in our personal worlds. Our mental maps provide the basis of the hundreds of automatic decisions about how to act that we make each day. Your mental map differs from mine because our past experiences have been different, giving us different assumptions about how to behave in the world in order to get what we want from it.

When we are interacting with others, we are behaving. We are acting and reacting, talking and responding. Our behavior is not random. It is ordered and purposeful to the extent that our mental maps guide our behavior. We assume, whether correctly or not, that acting in a particular way will produce an intended outcome. If I am yelling at you, it is because I assume that “Impressing on you the strength of my anger will cause you to give in to me.” If I walk out and slam the door, my mental map has led me to believe that “Showing you how hurt I am will make you feel sorry for me, and then you will let me have my way” or perhaps “Conflicts are hopeless; it's best to avoid them.”

These internal scripts come from past experiences that taught us lessons. Each of these old lessons (many of which may not have come from good teachers) provided information that today make up parts of our mental maps about how to manage interpersonal differences.

This information establishes a causal (“if-then”) link between behavioral options and the likely consequences of each option. Since we generally attempt to behave in ways that will promote our own self-interests, these if-then links constitute a chain of assumptions that guide our way toward desired outcomes.

Revising Our Mental Maps

Scientifically sound theories, models, and concepts supply accurate information about how to behave when in conflict. Learning valid models helps us revise parts of our mental maps so that they serve as more reliable guides to where we want to go – satisfying, productive, harmonious relationships. For example, the part of my map that says “Walking out will make you feel sorry for me” might change to “Walking out will only deepen your resentment toward me and make it harder to resolve this.” This changed if-then link in my map will cause me to act differently in future conflicts.

This chapter introduces the behavioral science of difference-management. The concepts and models that follow come to us from several disciplines – particularly psychology, sociology, communication theory, organizational behavior, cultural anthropology, and ethology. I have made no attempt to be comprehensive in reviewing relevant scientific literature, nor to report research from original sources. Rather, I have synthesized information from several fields that helps us understand the anatomy of interpersonal differences and how they can be managed constructively. Although most of this information is accepted scientific theory, some ideas are somewhat controversial. Certain parts are my own informed speculation that I hope the reader will regard as worthy of consideration. Whether they be proven facts or the subjects of informed debate, the ideas presented here will add more detail to your mental map.

Chapter 18:

DYNAMICS OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Interpersonal conflict is a system of behavior. Like other complex systems, it is comprised of many interrelated subsystems that contain elements which interact dynamically. In this chapter, we will look at four relevant dynamics of interpersonal conflict:

· Issues in conflict

· The retaliatory cycle

· Confrontation and conciliation phases

· The ambivalence-projection-polarization chain

ISSUES IN CONFLICT

“Issues” may be thought of as “matters of concern” to participants. In every conflict, there are three kinds of issues that concern the parties: substantive, emotional,

and pseudo-substantive.

Substantive Issues

Unless you and your Other have jointly adopted a policy of non-communication to cope with your differences, you have arguments. Your arguments are about issues, the matters of mutual concern. You may argue with your spouse about how to handle money, or about whose career is more important. You may argue with a co-worker about whose turn it is to answer the phones, or with your boss about whether your performance review was properly conducted, or with your teenage child about what time to come home from the school dance. The subjects of these arguments are “substantive issues.” Taken at face value, substantive issues are matters that concern the participants and therefore are the problem to be solved or the question to be decided.

Positions

Each partner holds a position on the disputed substantive issue that differs from the position held by the Other. You think monthly budgeting is the proper method of handling family finances; your spouse believes that keeping track of the checking account balance and exercising self-restraint while shopping is a more practical approach. You think your job performance merits a satisfactory rating; your boss insists that it calls for an unsatisfactory evaluation. You want your teenager home from the dance by 11:00; she wants to stay out until midnight. Your statements during the argument are attempts to persuade the Other to accept your position, and vice versa.

At this time, let me introduce you to Jane, an unnoticed observer of these arguments. Jane assumes that resolving a conflict is simply a matter of finding a mutually acceptable compromise position on the substantive issues being argued, or possibly finding some previously unrecognized alternative position that satisfies both participants' self-interests. Be forewarned: Jane is in for an education in the next few pages.

Emotional Issues

After some reflection on what she witnessed during your latest argument, Jane notices that the conflict was not simply a difference of opinion – a reasonable, unemotional discussion. An unemotional difference of opinion is distinctly different from a tense or angry encounter. The latter is what we call a “conflict.” A mere difference of opinion is seldom regarded as a problem – just a subject for conversation. The angry argument she observed was clearly not just a conversation.

Noticing this distinction helps Jane to recognize that when people are in conflict, emotional matters of concern must also be involved – we will call these concerns “emotional issues.”

Personal Needs and Emotional Issues

What might be the emotional issues in a conflict between spouses about handling money, or between you and your boss about the accuracy of your performance appraisal? Emotional issues fall into a rather small number of categories:

1) Issues of POWER, deriving from individual needs for control and influence over others, and for the social status created by power differences.

2) Issues of APPROVAL, deriving from individual needs for affection – to be liked.

3) Issues of INCLUSION, deriving from individual needs for acceptance into social groups.

4) Issues of JUSTICE, deriving from individual needs to be treated fairly, equally and equitably.

5) Issues of IDENTITY, deriving from individual needs for autonomy, self-esteem, positive self-image, self-determination and affirmation of personal values.

Whether these categories are exhaustive or mutually exclusive is unimportant. Our point here is that emotional issues underlie arguments about substantive issues. Indeed, the presence of emotional issues is what distinguishes a “conflict” from a “disagreement.” That is, substantive issues are felt to be important only to the extent that they are vehicles for the resolution of emotional issues.

To Know Thyself

Emotional issues are not as easy to recognize as are substantive issues. In the heat of argumentative battle, we generally do not mention them. Perhaps especially in the workplace, we don't often speak of our needs for power, our needs to be liked and approved of, or our needs to be socially included. For better or worse, social and organizational norms typically discourage open disclosure of these needs. After years of learning how to fit in, we have incorporated these norms so deeply that we are often not even consciously aware of our own emotional issues. Being unaware of them, we have difficulty “getting in touch” with how we feel and describing these feelings clearly.

Even so, these fundamental human needs are present in each of us. So, in every interpersonal dispute, emotional issues supply the energy that fuels the flames of conflict. They are the fire in us that our foes try to douse with logical persuasion.

Unbeknownst to the douser, however, our persuasive efforts to put out the fire are often the emotional equivalent of gasoline. Attempting to change the Other's mind with facts and logic only increases his conviction that he is right. His personal needs that spawn emotional issues cannot be reduced or satisfied through persuasion, argument, or logical reasoning. On the contrary, we cling ever more dearly to our positions as the Other refuses to recognize the superior logic of our position. His stubborn resistance to accepting our position on the substantive issue only lends further evidence to our belief that he is wrong. The heat of battle intensifies.

Remember Jane, our scientifically curious observer? She can now identify the substantive and emotional issues in the conflicts she witnessed a while ago. She recognizes that each spouse in the money conflict needs to feel in control of the family's financial resources (an issue of power). She recognizes that the employee's needs to be treated fairly and to maintain a positive self-concept as a competent worker are violated by the boss's evaluation of his performance (issues of justice and identity). Similarly, the teenager needs to be viewed by her peers as having matured beyond childish curfews (issues of identity, approval, and inclusion).

We might conclude that conflict resolution is achieved by bringing emotional issues out of the protective darkness of silence, and into the light of open discussion. Not so fast, Jane cautions. There is more to understand.

With ever-increasing insight, Jane notices that disputants often become reconciled, resolved, conciliatory, more trusting, and more intimate without having come to a specific agreement on the substantive issue they were arguing about. Even more surprisingly, the emotional needs underlying the substantive issues may not have been directly addressed and resolved. This is puzzling. If not by a reasoned exchange of views on the contested issues, how do conflicts become resolved?

Pseudo-substantive Issues

Jane has noticed a curious phenomenon that may provide a clue to the answer. She observes that during arguments, additional issues are brought up and disputed. The contesters then stake out opposing positions on these new issues and treat them as though they are substantive. Often, these additional, apparently substantive issues had not been mentioned previously. Sometimes, they are awakened from a hibernation that began in a previous season of the partners' relationship.

Jane has also noticed that, when reconciliation eventually does occur, many of these new subjects of argument are ignored – no agreement is reached on them. How can this happen? Were these substantive issues actually unimportant? Is reconciling different positions on substantive issues actually unnecessary? If so, what was the argument really about? Jane begins to suspect that the process of solving conflicts is not as logical as she had first assumed.

A Deception of Self and Other

Jane's suspicions are correct. The “substantive” issues being argued were not as substantive as they appeared at face value. Having one's preferred position accepted by the Other was not all that mattered – perhaps this was not even a significant concern. The apparently substantive issues were, to some degree, “pseudo-substantive.” That is, they were partially or even wholly false, not materially related to the disputants' objective underlying interests. But why are pseudo-substantive issues present in conflicts? What purpose do they serve?

Issues are substantive to the extent that they represent objective, rational underlying self-interests. Issues are pseudo-substantive to the extent that they serve to satisfy individual needs related to emotional issues. So, any disputed issue can be, and usually is, both substantive and pseudo-substantive.

To summarize how the three kinds of issues are related:

Pseudo-substantive issues

are emotional issues

disguised as substantive issues.

Jane is dismayed. How can two people in conflict ever sort out rational self-interest from unconsciously generated pseudo-substantive issues? Fortunately, recalling chapter 13, Jane recognizes that resolution is not rational – “The problem does not have to be solved for the conflict to be resolved.” The remainder of Part 5 will guide Jane's rational mind through this paradox.

Illustration

Let's consider the case of Roger who disputes his most recent performance evaluation by his boss, Donna. Roger's somewhat negative evaluation is of substantive concern to him to the extent that his salary and career progress may be affected. It is pseudo-substantive to the extent that it affects his self-esteem, status among co-workers, and feelings of being treated fairly. In the proportion that it affects both, the issue is both substantive and pseudo-substantive.

But this is not the first time that Roger has felt he was treated unfairly by his boss. Previous instances of perceived unfair treatment produced feelings of resentment, but the issues were never discussed with Donna. These old resentments have accumulated to form a pool of “angry energy” in Roger’s subterranean psyche. The negative performance evaluation raises the level of the pool to overflowing. He shouts angrily at her.

The display of anger directed at Donna is not in proportion to the severity of this particular insult – the somewhat negative evaluation. Roger's pent-up anger requires venting far beyond what is an appropriate response to the present issue. In order to dissipate leftover anger, Roger criticizes other areas that are not related to the immediate problem – her sketchy technical knowledge, out-dated style of dress, and overall incompetence as a manager (pseudo-substantive issues). He is discharging anger from the reservoir within.

Some of these pseudo-substantive issues have some actual impact on Roger's self-interest; others are entirely irrelevant. But he himself is unaware of this. He is deceiving himself into believing that the pseudo-substantive issues are actually substantive. The conflict between Roger and Donna compounds as Roger expresses these criticisms of Donna to other employees, creating tension and contaminating others' relationships with her.

The self-deception inherent in pseudo-substantive issues is unconscious and reflexive, not premeditated or consciously intended. Although past experience has shaped how we do it, the psychological mechanism that creates pseudo-substantive issues is inherited. It is a psycho-biological process that we are born with and will have until we die, and will genetically pass on to our children. It is human nature. By learning new skills and gaining new insights into behavior we can manage our behavior more constructively, but we cannot eliminate the process within us that creates pseudo-substantive issues.

Implications

How does our understanding of the three kinds of issues guide us in managing interpersonal differences?

· Managing differences does not necessarily require agreement to be reached on any particular substantive issue. Disputed issues may be largely pseudo-substantive, having little impact on objective underlying self-interests. To that degree, compromises and concessions may be easily exchanged between participants.

· Conflict resolution requires the discharge of angry energy accumulated from prior frustration.

· Participants in conflict cannot be expected to act reasonably or logically until angry energy has been discharged.

THE RETALIATORY CYCLE

Periodically an event triggers conflict which evidences itself through an exchange of hostile behaviors. We commonly refer to this exchange as a “fight.”

For example, the triggering event may be a comment by a spouse during dinner that a checking account overdraft notice came in the mail. This seemingly innocent bit of information launches the couple into another fight over the best style of managing money. As the argument continues, accusations, self-defensive explanations, attacks and counter-attacks are exchanged. The couple is engaged in a “retaliatory cycle.”

Figure 1: Retaliatory Cycle

The sequence of events in the retaliatory cycle are as follows:

1) Triggering event. Any verbal or non-verbal behavior by Person A. May be intended as hostile, or purely innocent.

2) Perception of threat. Person B perceives that his self-interest is at risk. Can arise from inferring hostile intent (“She is trying to sabotage me”), or simply from carelessness (“You inconsiderate nincompoop!”). This is the cognitive component of the cycle.

3) Defensive anger. The natural and automatic emotional response to perceiving that one is being attacked. Anger is the mobilization of energy to protect oneself, and is entirely healthy. This is the emotional component of the cycle.

4) Acting out. Unless its energy is harnessed for constructive problem-solving, Person B's defensive anger is transformed into self-protective behavior – either Coercion or Distancing. Coercion with Power-plays leads to “spiraling up” toward escalation, retaliation, and even violence. Distancing with Walk-aways leads to “spiraling down” toward lessened interdependency, impoverishment of the relationship, and even divorce or termination. Either form of acting out is an unconscious strategy, biologically designed by evolution to ensure our survival of dangerous situations. This is the behavioral component of the cycle.

5) Repetition. Person B's acting out may be perceived by Person A as an unprovoked triggering event. This sequence then becomes an endless loop from which there is no natural escape. Each participant feels unable to safely stop the cycle without accepting defeat.

This is the anatomy of a fight.

Living and working in highly social groups, we can and usually do exercise self-control in preventing the retaliatory cycle from escalating to violence, typically by Distancing enough to avoid provoking retaliation. Unfortunately, Walk-aways cause our relationships to spiral down, depriving us of the pleasure and benefits that they could potentially give us. And, there are many tragic occasions, some reported in the headlines, where Coercion has been the defensive strategy of choice, resulting in spiraling up to violence.

Regardless of how successfully we exercise self-control over our behavior, the retaliatory cycle is psychologically primitive in origin, and is biologically rooted in our ancient past. The reflexes are powerful and are not fully controlled by willpower. The retaliatory cycle is a typical, even universal, form of interaction during interpersonal conflicts.

Implications

How does understanding the mechanics of the retaliatory cycle help us manage differences? During the Dialogue of Self Mediation,

· We can “reality test” our assumptions about our Other’s intentions, checking them for accuracy. We might discover that a triggering event was not motivated by hostility after all, or that it was an unavoidable mistake that the Other regrets. Consequently, we short-circuit the retaliatory cycle, preventing it from spiraling up or down toward ruin.

· We can apply Cardinal Rule #1 to outlaw Walk-aways. Withdrawing from communication is often experienced by others as a hostile tactic. Mutual Distancing is an “armed standoff” that deprives each participant of satisfaction of needs. This uneasy truce only temporarily suspends the retaliatory cycle; it does not stop the fight. Cardinal Rule #1 reinstates communication, the lifeblood of resolution.

· We can apply Cardinal Rule #2 to outlaw Power-plays. Coercion or intimidation to force compliance with demands causes conflict to spiral up toward violence. Force begets force. Each increase in the level of force brings a corresponding increase in retaliation by the Other. With each escalating round of the cycle, the stakes are raised for each participant, making it ever more difficult to find a face-saving way to escape from the cycle.

CONFRONTATION AND CONCILIATION PHASES

Most of us can recall a “good fight” with a spouse that somehow led to intimacy, or a “frank discussion” with a colleague that resulted in renewed trust and cooperation, or a “heart-to-heart talk” with an offended friend that brought the return of warmth and mutual support.

We can also recall many episodes of the retaliatory cycle that left us upset and angry. On such occasions, a reservoir of angry energy remained within us, tugging at our self-restraint, demanding an outlet.

What accounts for the difference between these two experiences? Why do fights sometimes lead to resolution, and at other times bring only frustration? Often, the difference is whether the fight was permitted to continue through completion of the “confrontation” phase and proceed to the “conciliation” phase of the encounter.

Hydraulic Theory of Emotion

Eons of interpersonal conflict have contributed popular expressions to modern language that describe this experience: “letting off steam,” “getting things off your chest,” “blowing your top.” These phrases suggest a “hydraulic theory” of emotion, indicating that pressure contained within a closed system seeks release through some outlet.

The validity of the hydraulic theory of emotion is debated among behavioral scientists. Whether or not you subscribe to the theory, the indisputable fact is that time for confrontation within an appropriate context normally precedes emotional readiness to reconcile. An analogy of the confrontation and conciliation phases is illustrated as the “Conflict Mountain”:

Figure 2: Conflict Mountain

Join me in plotting a journey. Imagine that you are at point “A” and wish to travel to point “B.” Between you and your destination stands a mountain. No road bypasses the mountain, so you must travel up to the peak, then down. So, it is impossible to get to “B” without enduring the difficult part of the journey, the upward climb. Nor is it possible to go down before going up. “A” precedes “B.” This is an inescapable fact, like it or not.

Point “A” represents a state of unresolved conflict with your Other. You wish that your relationship were harmonious and satisfying, rather than tense and uncomfortable. These objectives lie at your destination, point “B.” The “conflict mountain” stands between you and your goal. The stressful upward journey that you must travel first is the confrontation phase; the easier downward part is the conciliation phase.

You wish that you could magically find yourself at peace with your Other. But magic is not of the natural world. Human nature (psychology) is a part of the world, just as “mountain nature” (geology) is also part of the world. The height of the mountain symbolizes the amount of escalation necessary before one can proceed to reconciliation. You may have to scale the mountain to intimidating heights. Also, it is not a journey you can travel alone, at your own pace; you can only go there with your Other. You are interdependent, as if handcuffed together.

Often, when we find ourselves at point “A” and aspire to point “B,” our fear of confronting the Other is so great that we hardly get started before we quit the climb. Our dread is magnified by being unable to see the top of the mountain. Its height is uncertain, but looking up from the bottom, the peak looms frighteningly high. We believe that danger lurks at high altitudes and that we, as individuals or as a relationship, might be hurt if we climb too high.

Another apprehension about starting to climb together is that past experiences have revealed the Other's habit is to quit part way up, leaving us up there all alone. So, we often take the safe option of not starting the climb at all.

But climbing the mountain is the only way to get to point “B.” We sometimes try to act as if we are already at point “B,” doing our best to act polite. But triggering events remind us that we really aren’t there yet. So, we wait beside the mountain, making tentative starts from time to time, feeling helplessly dependent on the other to show signs of trustworthiness, or hoping that some magical vehicle will transport us effortlessly to point “B.”

Implications

The existence of confrontation and conciliation phases of the Dialogue means that:

· It is necessary to engage in confrontation before we can expect resolution and harmony.

· It is necessary to ensure that neither partner will abandon the journey before reaching point “B.”

The risk of harm to the relationship posed by escalation is real but is perceptually exaggerated. It may be helpful to set some groundrules for the Dialogue that will prevent the escalation from being greater than necessary.

AMBIVALENCE, PROJECTION, AND POLARIZATION

Because the world is not simple and best answers are not easy to find, we are ambivalent about most things. That is, we have few feelings, needs or wishes that are not incongruent with other feelings, needs and wishes. We may like our jobs, but we also find our jobs frustrating and stressful. We may love our spouse, but may also find him/her annoying and perhaps sometimes even hateful.

Few wishes or needs are so simple that we are not ambivalent about them. Certainly, our feelings toward the significant Others in our lives are not uniformly positive. We feel both attraction and repulsion, liking and dislike, respect and disrespect.

Cognitive Dissonance

Having two incompatible experiences at the same time is inherently uncomfortable, an experience that psychologists call “cognitive dissonance.” Our inner workings strive to reduce dissonance and replace it with consonance.

For example, Howard considers himself a wise shopper, yet he recently spent $40,000 on an automobile that requires frequent mechanical service. The two experiences, “I am a wise shopper” and “I bought a lemon,” are incompatible. Howard attempts to regain cognitive consonance by adjusting his perceptions so that the two conflicting experiences are no longer in conflict. In this case, he might tell himself, “Expensive cars are complex hi-tech machines, so it takes a while to work out the bugs. It will all be worth it in the end.” This rationalization permits Howard to retain his positive self-concept as a wise shopper in the face of evidence that he made an unwise purchase. These attitude adjustments almost always take place unconsciously and automatically.

Ambivalence, as it occurs in conflict, often produces cognitive dissonance. When we are ambivalent about a particular substantive issue, we are not entirely “of one mind.” We may not be absolutely certain what to believe, or which position to support on a complex issue. Recognizing some truth in two alternative positions, both of which cannot be correct, is inherently discomforting and stressful.

To illustrate these dynamics, let's sit in on a project team meeting at the Hard Core Manufacturing Company. The team is discussing two options: (1) to delay production of a new widget in order to ensure quality, or (2) to meet the deadline in spite of likely quality problems. Each of these two positions has both merits and drawbacks.

Projection

As a member of the team, Helen is unsure which position to espouse. Her uneasy ambivalence seeks resolution. Here, dissonance is the anxiety aroused by Helen's awareness of not knowing an answer and, at the same time, thinking of herself as a smart person. The ego-defense mechanism of “projection” provides a way for Helen to reduce the tension of cognitive dissonance caused by ambivalence, and to achieve consonance.

When we “project,” we attribute some undesired characteristic of ourselves to another person. That is, we see it in the Other rather than in ourselves. By projecting this characteristic onto the Other, it is eliminated from ourselves, and so our dissonance is reduced.

Projecting to Reduce Ambivalence

Projection is a mechanism for lowering the ambivalence that arouses dissonance. By attributing one side of our ambivalence about some issue onto another person, we can then perceive the Other as supporting a belief or position that we reject.

Let's say that to reduce her ambivalence about the issue before her team, Helen chooses to champion position #1, to delay production. Once her choice is made, Helen feels relieved of ambivalence by achieving resolution on the issue.

How do we decide which side of our ambivalence to support and which side to project, if not on the objective merits of the two positions? Helen's choice to support position #1 is somewhat arbitrary because the data, which would conclusively prove which option is better, are incomplete. All important decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty – otherwise they would be easy and we would all agree. But once the choice is made, our human egos demand that “that which is me” is favored over “that which is not me.” Once projected, the denied part of herself – the “not me” part – becomes inherently negative, undesirable. Helen's adaptive mind then goes to work unconsciously rearranging her analysis of information about the issue so that she views the rejected position (to not delay) as a bad idea. She now regards it as worthless scrap that is cast off from her “rational” analysis. A decision has been made, although it may not be the best decision.

From Intrapersonal to Interpersonal Conflict

This mental maneuvering removes Helen's ambivalence and thereby reduces her cognitive dissonance. That is, it resolves her intrapersonal conflict – the conflict within herself. But reducing ambivalence through projection has a troubling side effect: It creates interpersonal conflict.

Helen's intrapsychic peace, won by this self-manipulation, is short-lived. A few moments later in the team meeting, her colleague, John, while exploring pros and cons of the two options, points out a merit of position #2, that production should not be delayed. In making this comment, John unwittingly threatens Helen's new-found intrapsychic harmony – being “of one mind” – and presents himself as a convenient target for her projection. Giving John's comment serious consideration would rekindle her ambivalence, so she is obliged to perceive it as an unworthy idea.

John may or may not have reached a decision on the issue – he simply pointed out a bit of data. But Helen has projected onto him the belief that production should not be delayed. She had rejected that position in order to reduce the intrapsychic tension of ambivalence; it is now an unwanted, denied, former part of herself. So she now perceives that John holds that belief, rather than herself. Now, instead of struggling with her internal indecision, Helen can act out the struggle interpersonally. We see the beginning of a two-person conflict.

Regarding herself as a good problem solver, Helen must now protect that part of her self-concept by ensuring that other team members agree with her. As the team's discussion continues, she points out the flaws in John's position. Since the issue of whether to delay is a complex and controversial one, she can use very reasonable and sound arguments in doing so. If Helen can persuade others that she is correct, then she must surely have made the right choice. She convinces herself by convincing others.

Personalization

Like us all, Helen must maintain a positive self-concept. To do so requires that she believe her position is correct. It also leads to her opinion that John's holding an opposite position must mean that he is not only incorrect but also defective in some way. Why else would someone believe something opposite to her belief? Regardless of past assurances that “reasonable people may disagree,” our natural ego-defense requirements urge us to assume that people who believe differently from us must be flawed.

So, in order to maintain her cognitive consonance, Helen questions John's competency. He obviously must be uninformed or prejudiced, as demonstrated by his support of a wrong idea. Further ego-protection is achieved by believing that anyone who supports that idea is not only wrong, but is also stupid. Helen has now “personalized” the conflict; that is, she has attributed the reason for their conflict to the personal characteristics of her Other, John.

In projecting and personalizing the conflict it is Helen's own anxieties about being incompetent, uninformed, prejudiced, and stupid that are relieved by seeing those flaws in John.

Meanwhile back in the team meeting, John, being only human, is simultaneously going through the same ambivalence-reduction process across the table from her. His conclusion is that meeting the deadline is the correct solution to the team's problem, and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be stupid. This is the anatomy of a “personality conflict.”

Polarization

This mutual projection of rejected positions on substantive issues reduces intrapsychic ambivalence for both John and Helen. But it also leads to polarization. That is, both have projected onto the other the unwanted side of their intrapersonal ambivalence on the issue and are now arguing about it. Helen's original intrapersonal conflict is now being acted out as an interpersonal conflict. Since egos cannot permit letting in disconfirming information that would arouse ambivalence, each partner must introduce new data to support the correctness of their respectively preferred positions on the “substantive” issue – largely pseudo-substantive, since it serves as a vehicle for meeting emotional needs. Helen and John have polarized to the extent that they seem to hold totally opposite positions on the issue of whether to meet the production deadline. Agreement now seems increasingly difficult to achieve unless one gives in to the other and accepts defeat. They have created a win-lose conflict.

This ambivalence-projection-polarization chain helps explain the puzzling phenomenon that people who are closest to each other fight the most. Employees may wonder why they ever took a job in an organization full of such crazy, incompetent people. Married couples may constantly fight, leading to the conclusion that they have such opposite personalities, such “irreconcilable differences,” that divorce is the only answer.

A gloomy picture? No hope for compatibility? The fact that we sustain long-term, interdependent relationships is testimony to a remarkable ability. Tolerating ambivalence, and refraining from premature projection onto others to defend our egos against the anxiety aroused by intrapsychic ambivalence, is no easy task. Indeed, managing ambivalence may the most highly evolved skill we develop by living and working interdependently with others. Still, especially under stressful conditions, this destructive sequence of events is all too common.

Implications

How does understanding the ambivalence-projection-polarization model help us manage our differences?

· A lengthy period of face-to-face talking may be needed to get each participant's actual positions communicated, to “reality test” projections, leading to recognition that they are inaccurate.

· Conciliatory gestures help to resolve so-called “personality conflicts” by eroding the destructive tendencies to find fault with the Other (personalize) and exaggerate differences between oneself and the Other (polarize).

· Partners' normal and natural needs to maintain positive self concepts (defense of ego) must be met in ways that do not increase interpersonal conflict. Projection of negative attributes to the Other, which is the typical device for meeting ego-support needs in conflict situations, must be reduced. A both-gain or fair compromise solution to substantive issues must be found, effectively reducing the need to protect the ego from assault.

On To Harmony

This chapter has described several behavioral and mental events that occur during episodes of human conflict. Each of the models contain several elements that interact dynamically. With our understanding of these dynamics, we will next explore the forces that are present in two-person conflicts which Self Mediation harnesses to transform conflict into harmony.

Chapter 19:

FORCES TOWARD HARMONY

Happily, all the psychological dynamics at play in two-person relationships do not promote conflict. Others work in the opposite direction, helping turn conflict into cooperation and tension into harmony.

Once the retaliatory cycle has begun, a key event must happen for resolution of conflict to occur: One of the participants must offer a conciliatory gesture. Someone must indicate a willingness to agree, to compromise, to stop fighting. Without such a gesture, mutual retaliation would continue indefinitely, and the conflict would spiral up or down toward destruction. So before examining the psychological forces toward harmony, let's first sharpen our understanding of the intriguing phenomenon of conciliatory gestures. Then we will look at four forces harnessed by Self Mediation that cause them to happen.

CONCILIATORY GESTURES

Everyone knows from personal experience that not all conflicts are chronic, endless, interpersonal tragedies. Many episodes of the retaliatory cycle result in agreement and renewed trust. How does this transformation take place? The simplest answer is: Conflicts end because conciliatory gestures happen.

What is a conciliatory gesture? As discussed briefly in chapter 10, it is a behavior that signals a shift in attitude from me-against-you to us-against-the-problem. The gesture is usually a verbal statement or question but can be a non-verbal expression of the same message. It reveals a desire or openness to resolve the conflict in a mutually acceptable way. The element common to all conciliatory gestures is that expressing them is risky – it makes one vulnerable to the Other. It presents an opportunity for the Other to score a point in the win-lose game.

Forms of conciliatory gestures are:

· Apologizing

· Expressing regret for one's past behavior

· Conceding on a contested issue

· Offering to compromise

· Expressing empathy for the Other's problems

· Recognizing the legitimacy of the Other's point of view

· Revealing one's own underlying needs and emotional issues

· Disclosing one's thoughts, feelings, motives, and past history as they pertain to the conflict

· Asking for honest feedback

· Expressing positive feelings for the Other, such as affection, admiration, respect

· Accepting personal responsibility for part of the problem

· Initiating search for both-gain solutions

Conciliatory gestures often go unnoticed, even by the one who made the gesture. They are skittish creatures that dart cautiously through the shadowy underbrush of the verbal forest. Sometimes they appear as double-entendres whose intended meaning is ambiguous. Indeed, gestures typically surface not as bold, unambiguous statements, but rather as sentiments nested in protective wrapping. To lessen the risk, we combine the conciliatory statement with blaming or critical language within the same sentence.

Often, due to personality or situational factors, one partner is more forthcoming with these gestures than is the Other. But in effectively managed conflict, there eventually is an exchange of conciliatory gestures that promptly results in relaxation of tension, increased affection and intimacy, improved trust. When this welcome moment arrives, the sigh of relief is sometimes audible.

This vital exchange is the Breakthrough part of Self Mediation. The Breakthrough introduces an improved emotional climate that opens a window of opportunity for participants to make a Deal about changes in each one's future behavior that will accommodate the concerns of the Other.

FOUR FORCES

The Breakthrough is the product of several psychological forces harnessed by the Method that act in concert to turn conflict into cooperation, interpersonal war into interpersonal peace. Although other constructive forces may also contribute, this chapter will focus on those that seem most powerful:

· Fatigue

· Desire for peace

· Catharsis

· Inhibitory reflex

Let's explore each of these forces in turn, starting with the most obvious and concrete and moving toward the more obscure and psychodynamic.

Fatigue

People get tired of fighting. Fighting is hard work. We “wear down” and want to stop, to end an unpleasant encounter. Once we see that we cannot “win” the conflict by persuading the Other to accept our demands, we may then see agreeing as the only remaining alternative to continued fighting.

Although it is the most obvious factor, fatigue alone is not sufficient to bring genuine reconciliation. If it were the only influence toward interpersonal peace, then conciliatory gestures would have a shallow tone, sounding like, “Okay, okay, have it your way. Let's agree to something so we can get out of here.” Agreements resting only on this foundation would be short-lived at best. But, in combination with the more optimistic forces to follow, fatigue can trigger a participant's willingness to move toward agreement.

Desire for Peace

Being in conflict is inherently unpleasant. Still, many of us perversely seem to like something about it. We all know people who “pick fights” with others for no apparent reason. Let's take a moment to examine this perversity before describing the desire for peace as a force toward harmony.

Early Learning

We learned much as children. Developmental psychologists estimate that our social behavior is mostly determined before we become teenagers, possibly much younger. If our early family environment was characterized by much fighting and arguing, then we learned that conflict is how people connect with other people – the way we get attention from others. Conflict then becomes comfortingly familiar – “better the devil we know than the one we don't.” As adults, we reproduce that familiar pattern of social interaction in our own families and workplaces.

Displaced Aggression

Another factor stirs up conflict, causing it to burst spontaneously into flames without reasonable cause. All of us, for periods of time, experience chronic frustration, feeling deprived of satisfactions we believe we are entitled to. Feeling unfairly deprived produces “floating anger” or irritability that lies hidden under the surface of shared waters like a mine awaiting a passing ship. When the mine is inadvertently struck by a co-worker or spouse, it explodes. This explosion is called displaced aggression.

If this mine-laying were conscious or intentional, we would accuse the perpetrator of engaging in interpersonal terrorism. But, since it is unwitting, it is more forgivable. The terrorist, also hurt in the resulting blast, is a victim as well. Still, the innocent victim who happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time will indignantly protest, “What did I do to deserve this?”

Illustration

A tongue-in-cheek illustration of displaced aggression goes like this:

Janet is criticized by her boss at work one day. Respecting her superiors, she dutifully accepts the criticism without retort. Coming home frustrated after work that night, Janet yells at her spouse, Bill, for not buying groceries on the way home from his day at the office. Bill, hoping to maintain marital harmony, stifles his annoyance and instead spanks their child, Junior, for some minor infraction. Junior, being a well-behaved child, does not retort, but instead kicks the dog, Spot. Spot, being an obedient dog, rather than biting Junior, chases the cat, Kitty. Kitty, recognizing the futility of fighting Spot, kills a mouse. So, the mouse pays the ultimate price for Janet's boss criticizing her at work that day.

So, the comfortable familiarity of learned behavior patterns, combined with misdirected aggression arising from floating anger, propel us into episodes of conflict that can seem devoid of rational purpose. At the same time, we find conflict unpleasant, stressful, and noxious. We are torn by a magnet-like duality of attraction and repulsion about conflict. Let's look more closely now at the more positive pole of the magnet, the desire for peace.

Ambivalence

The desire for peace is purely emotional – a felt need. From a strictly rational perspective, we are also interested in having our preferred solutions accepted by our adversary – getting our way. The emotional and rational concerns must be compromised. We can seldom fully have both peace in the relationship and our preferred solution. The tension between these two desires is illustrated in the Conflict Ambivalence Grid* (see Figure 3 on next page).

* Various two-dimensional grid models in conflict behavioral style analysis have been presented by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton, Alan Filley, Kenneth Thomas, and others.

Hard and Soft Bargainers

In attempting to reconcile this ambivalence, each partner strikes an often uneasy balance between the two desires. Some of us care more strongly for one outcome than for the other. The relative strengths of these two desires determines how “hard” we are as bargainers.

The greater our desire for peace, the more likely we are to offer or welcome conciliatory gestures. We may offer concessions on our preferred solution to the issue in dispute. If our desire for peace is low, then we are willing to sacrifice peacefulness in the relationship in order to maximize attainment of our preferred solution.

A person whose balance of desires is like that portrayed by Figure 4 (next page) would be experienced by her Other as a “hard bargainer.” In contrast a person whose balance of concerns resembles that in Figure 5 will sacrifice self-interest on substantive issues in order to maintain peaceful relations.

We differ from each other on how we characteristically balance these two desires. And, the balances we strike may vary from situation to situation. Still, in any conflict, each of us is concerned about both keeping the relationship harmonious and getting what we want from preferred solutions to the substantive issues. To the extent that desire for peace exists at all, it is a force toward conciliation.

Catharsis

Sigmund Freud was the most notable, but not the first, to advocate “the talking cure.” He rediscovered what all of us experience from time to time in our daily lives: Simply talking about our troubles relaxes physical and emotional tension. “Supportive counseling” is little more than the talking cure packaged as weekly appointments with an empathetic listener. Counseling provides a regular opportunity for people to talk about their worries and problems with a good sounding board. This discharge of pent-up tension is called “catharsis.”

Direct Engagement

How does catharsis help resolve interpersonal conflicts? No doubt you have discovered that when you are in conflict with someone, you can discharge some of the anger and tension by expressing it in ways other than direct face-to-face talking. Maybe you go to the gym for a vigorous game of squash, or you slam doors, or you talk to a friend. These are ways to drain off the overflow tension created by conflict.

But the long-term value of simply releasing angry energy indirectly is limited. In these examples, it is not discharged in the presence of the person who is the object of your anger. Therefore, you do not have the satisfaction of “direct engagement,” of expressing your anger directly toward its object. Rather, you are expressing it only toward a symbol of the object – the squash ball, the door, the mental image of your foe as you talk with the friend. By engaging only with the symbol of your Other, you are denied:

· The primal satisfaction of striking out (verbally, of course) against your foe, and

· The opportunity to hear and respond to your Other's responses and reactions that can lead to an exchange of conciliatory gestures.

Catharsis resulting simply from aggression toward a symbolic target provides a temporary release of tension. So, catharsis resulting from aggression displaced onto a symbol can help dissipate stress that is spawned by conflict. But catharsis during real-time Dialogue with your Other also releases tension. More importantly, it occurs in a setting where conciliatory gestures can be responded to by either of you as they arise in conversation.

Recalling our discussion in the chapter “Skills for Dialogue,” we should recognize that catharsis results from effective assertiveness just as is does from aggression – without the risk of escalation or spiraling up that happens when we act out aggressively. So, while we acknowledge the value of catharsis, we also prefer that it occurs via assertiveness.

So, a caution is in order. Catharsis via aggression carries risk. Psychological research shows that face-to-face verbal aggression can deepen conflict if done in an inappropriate context. Self Mediation, particularly the Cardinal Rules that outlaw Walk-aways and Power-plays throughout a Dialogue, provides some insurance against harmful effects of catharsis via aggression.

Inhibitory Reflex in Territorial Behavior

Scientists who study the social behavior of animals in their natural habitats – ethologists – have observed a pair of instincts that consistently control the behavior of two adult members of the same species during territorial encounters.

Aggression

The first instinct is aggression. Aggression occurs every time an animal perceives that another is violating a territorial boundary, or appears to have that intention. When a territorial violation occurs, the “home-turf” animal rushes to meet the intruder with threatening postures, and may physically attack unless the intruder immediately withdraws. Most conflicts between animals are resolved in this way – one individual retreats. It is this retreat from encounter that in modern human behavior we have labeled the Wrong Reflex #1: Distancing.

Sometimes, the intruder persists in attempting to take possession of the home-turf animal's territory. Then a fight occurs. But fights between animals in the wild hardly ever result in death. Why not? Because a second instinct prevents violence from escalating beyond a safe level, and serves as a mechanism for peaceful resolution.

This second instinct is the inhibitory reflex. We all have seen the inhibitory reflex happen, without paying much attention to it. Consider this backyard scenario: Two dogs, “Rex” and “Tiny,” get into a territorial fight in one's yard. Tiny quickly recognizes the futility of fighting with the stronger Rex and rolls over, showing his soft belly. Rex, if he chose, could bite Tiny's belly and possibly kill him. But by rolling over (a conciliatory gesture), Tiny has elicited the inhibitory reflex in Rex. Rex is utterly constrained by instinct from biting Tiny's tummy. Any sign of self-protective posturing by Tiny would release Rex from the inhibitory reflex's constraining muzzle, freeing him to bite.

So, the picture is this: Tiny lies belly-up on the ground, his soft, vulnerable tummy exposed, whimpering nervously. Meanwhile, Rex is poised with perilous fangs hovering above the submissive Tiny, growling menacingly. This scene continues a few moments, long enough for Rex to drive home his point that he is the winner. Rex then struts slowly away, the proud victor.

Tiny's conciliatory gesture automatically triggered Rex's inhibitory reflex, preventing dangerous escalation of the conflict. Where did Tiny's conciliatory gesture come from? Certainly, Tiny could predict that to continue fighting would have dire consequences to his health. He probably knew it was an uphill battle before ever encountering Rex to start with. He is not blind; he could see Rex's superior size and strength. So why did Tiny get involved in this hopeless encounter?

Tiny and Rex have dog-versions of what we have called in this book emotional issues. Tiny made a show of confronting Rex because his self-esteem, his pride, required it. But Tiny is no fool. He did so “knowing” instinctively that he could trust Rex to inhibit his aggression as soon as he employed the conciliatory gesture trick. Tiny got his “day in court” with Rex without getting hurt. So, dogs and other animals are instinctively equipped with the “knowledge” of how to use the conciliatory gesture whenever it is needed to elicit the inhibitory reflex in others.

Among dogs, as well as in every other species of predatory social animal on earth, the conciliatory gesture automatically elicits the inhibitory reflex. This happens just as surely as the aggressive reflex is triggered when an intruder enters another's territory. So aggression and inhibition are the two instincts that control intraspecies fights.

Inhibition in Humans

Now, what about us humans? We are not driven by instinct as absolutely as are animals. Still, we have evolved from common ancestors with other animals who share our planet today, and so we share an evolutionary heritage. We are different from animals in many ways; we are also similar to animals in some remarkable ways. The fact that the aggression and inhibitory reflexes are found throughout the animal world offers us an opportunity to learn something about how we handle human conflict by examining conflict between animals.

Before looking at how people follow a similar pattern in two-person conflicts, let's mention some differences between humans and animals that must be considered in drawing any parallels:

1) Having developed spoken language, we usually conduct our aggression – forays into enemy territory – via words rather than by physical attacks and attack posturing.

2) Our “territory” is often less concrete and geographical in nature, and more abstract and conceptual. Intruders in our homes and our offices, of course, arouse home-turf protective reactions. But so do co-workers who attempt to take over part of our job responsibilities, employees who overstep the bounds of their authority, spouses who attempt to impose a sex-role stereotype on their partners, colleagues who do not acknowledge the privileges of our professional rank, and salespeople who insist on taking up our time. In these examples, our “territory” is not clearly delineated. These uncertain boundaries make it difficult to determine whether a trespass is accidental or intentional.

3) In most human disputes, both participants often feel that they are on their own home turf and are simply protecting themselves from unwarranted intrusion by the Other. So it is much less clear that one individual is “in the wrong” by knowingly violating boundaries. More often, both participants feel their rights are violated by the other.

4) We have more free will in controlling how we behave than do animals. That is, we can choose to act differently from how our emotions propel us to act.

5) We live our daily lives in unnaturally large groups such as cities and mega-corporations, requiring us to interact closely with people whom we do not know well enough to trust.

Natural Weapons

One additional difference between humans and animals is a key to understanding two-person conflicts: People do not have “natural weapons.” Natural weapons, like sharp claws and long teeth, are parts of the body that could do physical damage to another in a physical fight. Every other predatory social animal has natural weapons – humans do not. We do, however, have vestiges of natural weapons, such as finger- and toe-nails and the “canine” teeth. These features of our bodies are puny remnants of what used to be, earlier in our evolutionary history, effective natural weapons that were used for preying on other animals for food and for sorting out the dominance hierarchy (the “pecking order”) in our social groups. Over the past few million years, however, these body parts have become less useful and have physically diminished.

What purpose does the inhibitory reflex serve for animals? Why did it evolve in the first place? Clearly, if Tiny's conciliatory gesture did not cause Rex to back off, Rex could use his long sharp teeth and powerful jaws to kill Tiny – not as prey for food, but as a member of the same species with whom he is simply sorting out dominance. If the natural weapons that animals have for predation and food-acquisition were used without restraint, then the species would be less effective in reproducing and succeeding in its environment. The inhibitory reflex evolved in parallel with natural weapons as a behavioral mechanism to restrain their destructive use within social groups. So, the combination of the aggressive impulse to perceived territorial intrusion, along with the inhibitory reflex, serves as a very effective behavioral mechanism in maintaining social order among animals.

Our Unreliable Inhibitory Reflex

Now let's look again at humans. As our natural weapons have become vestigial over the past several million years, the inhibitory reflex which had previously evolved to accompany them has also become vestigial. So, our inhibitory reflex is far weaker and less reliable than that of non-human animals. This would not present a problem except that over the past few thousand years (far too short a time for evolution to have produced adaptive changes) we have drastically changed the structure of social and community life. In early human social groupings, dominance had to be sorted out only in well-structured groups of a couple of dozen members, all of whom were born and reared together. When the group became larger than twenty or so, several members split off to form another group.

Today we live and work in “unnatural” social groupings. Organizations force people into ongoing, interdependent relationships. But co-workers did not grow up together and therefore did not learn at an early age to accept a position in the dominance hierarchy. Organizations are usually larger than the naturally occurring groups we evolved in, and for which our social behavioral mechanisms are adapted. Even the modern marriage may be an arrangement that is imposed on us by the demands of our exceedingly complex communities. Certainly the equal-status, shared-power marriage is a recent social invention that is more congruent with twentieth-century humanistic values than with social values of previous millennia.

Predicament of Modern Life

So now, on the threshold of the third millennium, we humans find ourselves in ongoing interdependent relationships that we are not well-equipped through evolution to manage peacefully. Specifically, the threats to our “turf” at work and at home arouse our self-defensive aggressive reflex, yet we do not have a reliable behavioral mechanism to extricate ourselves from the retaliatory cycle once it begins. Using a conciliatory gesture no longer ensures an automatic inhibitory reflex from our Other. Since our conflicts normally take the form of verbal arguments, verbal conciliatory gestures are often not noticed, or are misinterpreted as deceptive, manipulative tactics. Even when a conciliatory gesture is heard, it can be taken as an opportunity to “go for the jugular” and win the fight.

The human inhibitory reflex is weak. But it does exist, and the modest automatic impulse that remains can be exploited as the critically important fourth force for bringing harmony to two-person conflicts. It is the element in Self Mediation that triggers the Breakthrough, permitting the negotiation of both-gain agreements. It is that gentle nudge to respond in kind when one says to us, “I'm sorry” or “I made a mistake.”

Harmonizing the Forces

Fatigue from sustained effort, desire for peaceful relationships, release of tension through catharsis, and the inhibitory reflex to conciliatory gestures are human experiences that are not limited only to Self Mediation. They occur constantly through daily living. The power of Self Mediation for managing differences lies in the harnessing of these forces to bring harmony to discordant relationships. The structure, context, rules, and tasks prescribed by this four-step method help these four psychological dynamics join together in producing that special window of opportunity for interpersonal peace – the Breakthrough.

Chapter 20:

A SUMMARY:

HOW SELF MEDIATION TURNS

CONFLICT INTO COOPERATION

Finally, standing upon the behavioral science foundation laid in the previous two chapters, let's review Self Mediation, summarizing how each step contributes to transforming conflict into cooperation, making interpersonal peace.

Step 1: FIND A TIME TO TALK

Setting a time and the groundrules for a conversation with your Other about the issues that concern you . . .

· Establishes communication, the most fundamental and essential requirement for interpersonal peace.

· Establishes Cardinal Rule #1, which prevents the Wrong Reflex of Distancing from blocking resolution by ensuring that both participants are present and actively involved.

· Establishes Cardinal Rule #2, which prevents the Wrong Reflex of Coercion from resulting in defeat of one participant, laying the basis for future deterioration of the relationship.

Step 2: PLAN THE CONTEXT

Preparing the time-and-place environment for your talk . . .

· Ensures steady progress through the confrontation phase of the Dialogue, ensuring that both participants complete the “journey to the top of the mountain.”

· Ensures sufficient time for catharsis to occur during the confrontation phase so that genuine conciliatory gestures can emerge.

· Protects the Dialogue from the interruptions and distractions that can cause your meeting to fail.

Step 3: TALK IT OUT

The Opening . . .

· Establishes a climate of non-defensiveness and optimism.

· Reaffirms commitment to the Cardinal Rules of engagement during the Dialogue.

· Establishes an expectation that a both-gain solution will be found through joint searching.

The Invitation launches the Dialogue.

The Dialogue empowers the initiator of this Method to guide communication with the Other to a constructive conclusion by performing . . .

· Task #1: Staying engaged in the Essential Process, keeping participants in uninterrupted contact long enough for the four psychological forces to combine to produce conciliatory gestures; and

· Task #2: Supporting the Other's conciliatory gestures, so that friendly comments will not be taken as opportunities to “score a point in the win-lose game” thereby sabotaging progress; leading to . . .

The Breakthrough, in which both partners' attitudes shift from me-against-you to us-against-the-problem, a window of opportunity during which they can . . .

Step 4: MAKE A DEAL

Once Breakthrough occurs, framing a behaviorally specific agreement . . .

· Allows joint consent to decisions that require consensus.

· Creates a mutually acceptable plan for activities that require participation by both partners.

· Ensures a balanced give-and-take that provides an incentive for each participant to fulfill his/her obligations in the agreement.

· Enhances interpersonal trust.

· Provides an experience in successfully getting around the “boulder in the road,” increasing participants' optimism about their ability to manage their differences and resolve disputed issues in the future.

Chapter 21:

BETTER LIVING

THROUGH MEDIATION IN EVERYDAY LIFE:

THREE EPIPHANIES

Taking no credit for carefully planning the trip, I have meandered along a career path that has led me past some meaningful milestones. Two have changed my course in years past. A third occurs today as I prepare Managing Differences for its second edition.

For nearly 25 years I have devoted my professional life to designing, refining, practicing, and teaching communication tools that harness the power of mediation. Each milestone has marked another epiphany, revealing an even simpler tool. Each successive simplification makes the magic of mediation ever more accessible to people as they manage their differences every day in their ongoing interdependent relationships. Let me share the three epiphanies.

Communication tool #1: Simple Mediation

My study of conflict and ways to resolve it began early in graduate school. Some years later, while teaching organizational behavior at the University of Hartford in 1979, a career-changing insight flashed before my mind’s eye:

Mediation does not require

a professionally trained mediator.

Looking back from today’s perspective, this doesn’t seem particularly profound. But in the climate of the times, it seemed a lapse of common sense.

Reflecting on my errors as a fledgling mediator-consultant, I came to realize that mediation can be simplified so that people without extensive training can tap the subtle power of this tool for interpersonal peacemaking.

The Need in Organizations

This fact is particularly relevant to organizations. Supervisors and managers serve on the front line in the daily assault waged by conflict against the bulwarks defending their firm’s performance and profitability. Simple Mediation (called “Managerial Mediation” in this context) is a potent weapon in their defensive arsenal. The ability to resolve disputes between employees is an increasingly important competency as organizational hierarchies become flatter, which in turn causes staff to become more interdependent.

The insight that managers can mediate was captured in an article published in 1982*, and has evolved into the core content of a one-day management training program, “The Manager-as-Mediator Seminar.”

* D. Dana, Mediating interpersonal conflict in organizations: Minimal conditions for resolution, Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Volume 3, Number 1, 1982.

The notion that managers can mediate was provocative, as well as novel. My early advocacy of Managerial Mediation in presentations to fellow dispute resolvers sparked controversy. These were audiences who generally regarded the practice of mediation as the private preserve of “professional mediators.” In those early days, mediation was an emerging area of professional practice, venturing beyond its classical role in labor relations. Doing mediation was widely assumed to require extensive preparatory training and lofty credentials. Mediation was regarded as a nascent field of professional practice, just as medicine, law, psychology, and social work had once been.

In counterpoint, my presentations to conferences of colleagues contended that the essence of mediation is simply good management. That is, encouraging dialogue, managing the context of discussions, promoting non-adversarial search for consensus, and defining agreement in behavioral terms are simply good ways to solve workplace problems.

I eagerly concede that the commercial practice of mediation should be regulated to assure consumers of the competency of their mediators, just as other fields of commercial practice are regulated. Surely, just being well-versed in health care does not warrant hanging out a shingle as a medical doctor. Licensure, certification, and other regulatory

requirements for the practice of professional specialties are needed to protect consumers against harm by malpractice. Regulation is especially important for the practice of “invasive” services, in which the consumer is most vulnerable.

But recall from chapter 16 that in Simple Mediation, the third party plays a quite passive role, not an invasive one. Consequently, although it is not as powerful as intervention by a professionally qualified mediator, Simple Mediation is a valuable form of “self-help” that does not subject parties to risk. It merely outlines a way to have a conversation about a problem.

So, I advocated to the field of dispute resolution that this communication tool be made widely available, just as we avail the public of medical information to support their self-healthcare. I am gratified that Managerial Mediation is now widely acknowledged as a critical competency for supervisors. Indeed, mediation is included in the curricula of a growing number of graduate schools of business in the United States and internationally.

Communication tool #2: Self Mediation

Let’s fast-forward to 1988 for the next epiphany:

Mediation does not require a third party.

Recall that the core content of the first edition of Managing Differences was termed “The 4-Step Method” – the same communication tool that is now called Self Mediation in the second edition. Reviewer comments on the tool were favorable, particularly those from fellow mediators. The concept plainly made sense. But had I declared from the start that “mediation does not require a third party,” my colleagues would surely have been concerned that I had taken leave of my senses. After all, what is more definitive of “mediation” than the involvement of a third party?

But it was self-evident that no amount of proselytizing about Simple Mediation could, nor should, result in third parties being involved in all interpersonal disputes. The vast majority of day-to-day conflicts will continue to be handled by the people who are personally involved, without third party help. Indeed, I would be concerned about a decline in self-responsibility if we ran to a mediator each time a Clash erupted.

Does this mean that everyday disputes are left to founder on the shoals of our differentness, untrained helmsmen at the wheel? Fortunately, not. Simple Mediation can be even further simplified so that everyone can use it as a self-help communication tool – “Self Mediation.” As this book has described, the essential functions of a third-party mediator are integrated into the role of one person in the dispute – the one who proactively chooses to initiate a Dialogue to resolve it. So, the “Self-mediator” wears two hats simultaneously: A negotiator serving one’s own self-interests, as well as a mediator who performs the vital role behaviors of the absent third party, facilitating the process toward consensus.

As organizations have recognized the need for proactivity and empowerment in their workforces, Self Mediation has emerged as the core content of a second one-day training program, “The Self-as-Mediator Seminar.”

Communication tool #3: Common Courtesy

The simplification of mediation continues. Now, while preparing the second edition of Managing Differences, another epiphany grips my attention:

Mediation does not even require an “event.”

Now I’m truly at risk of being dismissed as a loose cannon on the quarter-deck of the ship of the profession! But maybe if I don’t define Common Courtesy as any manner of mediation, I will be spared the fate of being thrown overboard into the sea of apostasy. No, I choose to declare from the pulpit of this book that the same underlying psychology that makes Simple Mediation effective, and that makes Self Mediation effective, can be harnessed and put to work in all our daily interactions with the important people in our lives.

Mediation may be thought of as a toolbox containing an assortment of devices for non-adversarial communication about divisive issues. Many well-known tools have been designed for special purposes, ranging from negotiation of international treaties, to labor contract dispute settlement, to divorce mediation. Might we also design a tool to use “on line” every day, in all our interactions with others, to prevent conflict? Might there be a tool that can become “second nature” to us, one that just makes our relationships work better?

A visiting lecturer once remarked during my early graduate school days in psychology: “Psychotherapy is too good to be done only with sick people.” Might the same be said about mediation? Might the principles of mediation be used as a way of life, not just as a procedure for a mediation event?

“On line” Skills

Indeed, all of us use skills for managing differences “on line,” while we interact with others minute-by-minute, unaware that we are doing so. They have been developed throughout life as we learn how to get along with others. We generally don’t collect those skills under one umbrella and define them as a “tool.” I may be in a minority, but am not unique, as one who has virtually eliminated destructive conflict from my life, although I may be more conscious of how to accomplish this than most.

So, it is possible to tame the beast of conflict, gaining mastery over it, preventing the carnage inflicted when it rages out of control. Today’s epiphany inspires me to construct such a tool so others can carry it in their toolboxes.

What will such a tool look like? What kind of communication tool can enable us to manage our differences so well that conflict does not arise in the first place? That Blips do not escalate into Clashes? That the Essential Process is a constant feature of communication, not just the focus of special problem-solving meetings? That the Wrong Reflexes do not sabotage daily dialogues?

For now, let’s call that communication tool “Common Courtesy” – a better term may come along later. No training program to teach Common Courtesy is yet developed. How should such a program be named? “Preventing Conflict” would be a descriptive title. Or, since well-managed differences produce satisfaction and success in our relationships, which are key to a happy life, maybe “Working, Living, and Loving Well” would not be too ambitious a title. We’ll see where the path leads.

Let’s recall the spirit, if not the poetry, of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” Imagine that, in all interactions in our ongoing, interdependent relationships, no one used the Wrong Reflexes. Imagine that no one distanced, disconnected, avoided, withdrew, or walked away. Imagine that no one coerced, pressured, intimidated, threatened, or “power-played.” Imagine that no one acted passive-aggressively, using hit-and-run tactics of guerrilla warfare on the interpersonal battlefield.

Idealistic? Certainly. Utopian? Perhaps. Clearly, behaving in these ways requires a commitment of time and energy that may not be practical in relationships in which interdependency is low – we can simply hang up on an offensive telephone solicitor. But what about our spouses and children, our managers and close co-workers, our next door neighbors, our business partners and key associates? Would not this imagined behavior prevent decay of workplace teamwork and erosion of friendships? Would it not prevent the chilling of warm family love until only the cinder of “cold peace” remains? You and I imagine that it would.

Choice

So, why don't we do it? Why don't we “do the right thing?” Why don’t we routinely join our Others in a spirit of us-against-the-problem on issues that must be resolved to mutual satisfaction if our relationship is to thrive?

Reviewing my own failings, and observing those of others, I conclude that we lack courage. It is simply safer to Distance and Coerce than to Dialogue. It is easier to Walk-away and Power-play than to Talk It Out. Our vulnerabilities are protected when we avoid, evade, and ignore. Our weaknesses remain hidden when we bluster and intimidate and threaten. The illusion of our faultlessness is preserved when we deny our own hand in the creation of Clashes. Our emotional needs are exposed when we bravely encounter Others in search of common ground. Yes, we risk when we act responsibly, electing not to act out our defensiveness. Facing that risk requires courage.

But we can choose to act responsibly. We can choose to behave in the best interest of the relationship, instead of in our personal (short-term) self-interest at the expense of the (long term) relationship. The option of acting responsibly, and in our own enlightened self-interest, is always available to us. Although the behaviors required to exercise this option are simple to understand, but they are not easy to perform. They are more the psychological equivalent of high school algebra than of rocket science. It just requires making the courageous choice to act with Common Courtesy.

The Common Courtesies

A full treatment of this choice and the obstacles to making it are perhaps the subject of a future book. For now, it must suffice to only define two simple “rules of interpersonal engagement” that flow directly from foregoing chapters.

Common Courtesy #1: I will engage.

I will not distance from you emotionally or physically. I will join with you in talking out all issues on which we must concur to enable either of us to go forward with decisions or actions that affect the other. I will join you in conversations that you feel are important, even if I do not. I will not use distancing from you as retaliation when I feel that you have distanced from me. I will engage with you, as I ask you to engage with me.

Common Courtesy #2: I will respect your sovereignty.

I will recognize you as the legitimate sovereign reigning over your domain. Your rights as a self-determining person constitute that domain: The right to express yourself; the right to define your own interests, views and needs; the right to expect me to listen to you and try to understand; the right to have the impact of my actions on you considered before I act. I will acknowledge you as the unchallenged expert about your experience within your sovereign space – you know your thoughts, feelings, needs, wants, fears, and aspirations better than I, so I will not “should” on you. I will respect your sovereignty, as I ask you to respect mine.

Where to Apply the Common Courtesies

Various examples of workplace and family occasions where we might apply the Common Courtesies could be discussed as illustrations.

The case of the “tough boss” is familiar to most readers. You know the type: The boss who seems to enjoy wielding his power, throwing her political weight around, wearing his authority like a badge of privilege, dominating her employees just because she can. Usually unknown to themselves, such bosses (and their organizations) pay a stiff price for such short-sighted self-indulgence. But in the Darwinian marketplace, these dinosaurs are in decline. The managers who will adapt and survive are those who serve as coaches, resources, facilitators, and mentors to their employees. The future belongs to managers who use Common Courtesy, and to organizations that promote a corporate culture in which the Common Courtesies are the norm.

But I choose to end this chapter, and this book, with an application that is close to my own heart.

Despite the campaign of Dr. Benjamin Spock and his successors over the past half-century to encourage adult society to respect the rights of children, the parental paradigm in western cultures remains largely one of parenthood-as-power. As parents, we unquestioningly accept the “fact” that, because we are the adults in our parent-child partnerships, we have the right to coerce our children to abide our wishes. It is as if Machiavelli’s political philosophy should pertain also to our families – “might makes right.” Of course, we are devoted custodians of our children. We love them, nurture them, reward their achievements, and encourage their ambitions. But when wills clash, parents often resort to declaring, “Because I'm the mom/dad, that's why!”

Some readers will ask, “So what's wrong with that?” Yes, children need boundaries to be set around socially acceptable behavior. They need protection against the natural consequences of their own dangerous actions. They need their parents to serve as positive role models of adults who have power. But power is not equivalent to exercising self-serving control in violation of the child’s sovereignty within her legitimate domain.

I will forego arguing at length the case that parental coercion is bad for the child, bad for the parent, and bad for society. But briefly note that child abuse – that not-rare-enough violence by parents against children – is only the most notorious consequence of extreme parental coercion: Most child abusers once were themselves abused children. The rage and indignation that originated in their own experience of being abused overwhelms their moral sense of right-and-wrong, and they commit violence against their own children.

But what about the more commonplace struggles by many more adults (who also once were children) to overcome their fears of inadequacy, or to contain their senseless competitiveness? What about those adults whose childhood experience was marked by “normal” powerlessness – disempowered by their youth, their smaller size and lesser strength, their ignorance about the world, their abject dependency? What about those adults who don’t feel equipped by their “normal” childhoods to handle the rigors of adulthood, just as the ex-convict doesn’t feel equipped to handle life on the outside after years of being deprived of sovereignty over his daily existence?

Yes, they survived. They learned to hide in the dark corners of their privacy to avoid having their sovereignty usurped by their parents. Did they learn to feel secure in their personal domains, capable of taking full responsibility for themselves as autonomous yet socially-responsible adults: As employees, as bosses, as teammates, as members of communities and of families? Did they acquire the strength to carry their share of the load when their relationships become burdened with responsibility? Did they learn to feel safe enough to trust enough to be vulnerable enough to love and to be loved?

Too often the answer is no. These, I believe, are the more subtle costs of parental coercion, even as it is kindly and gently practiced the way society thinks is normal, acceptable, and proper – as the parenthood-as-power paradigm dictates. Each generation pays the price; society pays the price.

How can parents, who might like to consider adopting an alternative paradigm, apply the Common Courtesies with their children? How can we rethink our role so that parental Power-plays are disallowed without abandoning our responsibilities as guides and protectors of our children? Is there a practical alternative to parental Power-plays to respond to our children when their actions are inappropriate?

Many positive resources are available in your local bookstore and on the Internet. To supplement these worthy resources, I offer this brief introduction to Common Courtesy as a tentative guide for participating in our partnerships with our children. I intend to explore this new communication tool – the ultimate simplification of mediation – in future research and writing.

Whereof do I speak about parenting? My daughter was born in 1973. I have done my modest best over the years to apply my accruing learnings about mediation and “how to build better relationships” to our father-daughter partnership – learnings now taking shape as the Common Courtesies. Indeed, much of that learning has come to me through her intrinsic wisdom. Without embarrassing Susan by reporting details in this book, and without taking undue credit for the result, I will simply say that I am immensely pleased with the person she is and is becoming, and am proud to be her friend.

Appendix 1:

NOTES FOR THE OTHER

I am asking you to join with me in searching for mutually acceptable solutions to certain issues that we disagree about, and work with me to build a better relationship between us.

This process – called “Self Mediation” – requires that we find a time to talk without interruption until we are able to find some agreement. In order for this discussion to be successful, both of us must accept two “Cardinal Rules.”

Cardinal Rule #1: No “Walk-aways”

This means we will not walk out, give up, or stop trying until some kind of agreement is reached. Let's agree to accept feeling frustrated and angry during our talk, if necessary, and to persevere even if we want to quit.

Cardinal Rule #2: No “Power-plays”

This means that neither of us will try to impose a one-sided solution. Any solution that involves either of us being coerced to accept the other's demands is not acceptable. We must continue to search for a solution to which we both can agree and from which we both can gain.

If the subject of our dispute involves a decision to which we both must consent, or an activity in which we both must participate, we must reach an agreement. Good agreements are:

· Behaviorally specific, meaning that we will discuss in detail WHO, is to do WHAT, by WHEN, for HOW LONG, under what CONDITIONS, etc.

· Balanced, so that the agreement is fair for both of us.

· Written, to help us remember the details of our agreement in the future.

Thanks for caring enough about our relationship to work with me on this.

Appendix 2:

HOW TO USE THIS BOOK

FOR QUICK REFERENCE

This book may look like many others, to be read from start to finish, then to be put on your bookshelf to gather dust.

But this is designed so you can use it as a reference book, more like a dictionary, road atlas, or cookbook. First, read it through once, cover to cover, to familiarize yourself with Self Mediation and how it works. Then keep this with your other reference books – on your desk at work or on the coffee table at home.

Everyone encounters a conflict from time to time in important relationships. Each time you do, reach for this resource. After you have read it once, here is how to use this book:

1) Refresh your understanding of Self Mediation by reviewing Chapter 6: A Skeleton View.

2) Ask yourself this question:

“Do I feel comfortable using Self Mediation to resolve this conflict?”

3) If you answer yes, go to step 4 below. If you answer no, look through the following possible concerns to more clearly identify the reasons for your discomfort:

· I'm not sure it will work.

· I don't know if the Other will do it.

· I feel awkward suggesting we have a meeting.

· I don't want to be the one who initiates it. It would seem like I'm giving in.

· I can't trust the other person to not use unfair power advantage. I am too vulnerable to being punished.

· The conflict/relationship/issue is not important enough to me to go through the trouble and discomfort of talking about it.

· I think my conflict is more of a crisis than Self Mediation is designed to deal with.

· I might get too nervous to do it right.

· I'm concerned that the Other is not strong enough.

· I don't have the time to deal with it.

· I don't want the Other to get upset.

· It's easier just to keep things the way they are now.

· I don't think the Other would understand what to do.

· I'm afraid I would just give in to the Other's pressure.

· I would get too angry.

· I know the Other will not change; it would just be wasted effort.

Your concerns probably fall into any of five categories. Review the suggested sections of the book to explore your questions:

A) Concerns about importance of the problem. See Chapter 1.

B) Concerns about appropriateness of the problem. See Chapters 5 and 15.

C) Concerns about whether Self Mediation can solve the problem. See Chapters 14 and 15, and Part 5.

D) Concerns about yourself (confidence in your ability to use the method). See Chapters 10 and 11.

E) Concerns about your Other's ability or willingness to participate in Self Mediation. See Chapters 8 and 15.

4) Answer this question:

“After reviewing the relevant information in this book, am I confident that Self Mediation is designed to resolve conflicts of the kind I am concerned with?”

(Note: Do not expect yourself to be entirely free of apprehension. Review the discussion about discomfort in Chapter 13 if you are tempted to avoid a Dialogue with your Other as Self Mediation prescribes.)

5) If your answer is yes, do it. Use the checklist on the next page to be sure you're fully prepared. If your answer is no, look at alternative recommendations in chapters 5 and 15.

6) Congratulate yourself for being a problem-solver, not a problem-avoider!

CHECKLIST

Before Step 1 (“Find a Time to Talk”),

¨ Review “How to Use This Book for Quick Reference” (Appendix 2) to be sure the solution fits the problem.

¨ Review Self Mediation (chapter 6).

¨ Prepare the wording of a clear, concise, and objective statement of the issue to be talked about.

Before Step 3 (“Talk It Out”), be sure you've covered the following:

¨ Both schedules cleared for adequate time period?

¨ Interruptions prevented? (phone or walk-ins)

¨ No distractions? (seating comfort, visual movement, sound, thirst, temperature, etc.)

¨ Both agree to stay until agreement is reached?

¨ Both agree to no Walk-aways (Cardinal Rule #1)?

¨ Both agree to no Power-Plays (Cardinal Rule #2)?

¨ Do you have the Essential Process clearly in mind?

Appendix 3:

TRUE TALES OF SUCCESS

Since first appearing in1989, Managing Differences has been used as a sourcebook for corporate training programs and continuing education seminars and as a textbook for academic courses that have been attended by thousands. Participants are often invited to submit reports of their real-life applications of Self Mediation and of Simple (Managerial) Mediation. Six of their reports are included here so readers of the third edition can see how others have used these communication tools to build better relationships at work and home.

Some details of these cases have been disguised to preserve anonymity of the people involved.

Case #1: Balancing Work and Family

Richard and I had been married nearly ten years when he decided to quit his job as an assistant branch manager of a bank and go to law school. About the time his school began, my boss was elected to the state house of representatives, which would require his being out of town from January to mid-April for the next two years. I would have to handle his responsibilities as well as my own. On top of everything, I am in the middle of my master’s degree program in business, taking two courses each semester.

These changes and stresses threw our marriage into a crisis. Previously, Richard and I had shared the household tasks of cooking, laundry, grocery shopping, and general cleaning about equally. We don’t have children, and we had earned similar salaries in our jobs, so it was pretty easy to get things done. We ate out in restaurants some of the time, and we hired a cleaning lady to come in once every two weeks. Looking back, life was so easy then!

Without Richard’s income, we had to cut out the restaurants and the cleaning lady. He got in the habit of staying in the den studying through the evening. At first, I felt OK about fixing dinner and cleaning up after, so that he could take only a short break from his studies. But I also had to study for my two classes: Business Economics and Corporate Financial Analysis – pretty demanding courses. When I asked Richard to do more of the household tasks, he objected, saying that doing well in law school was more important than cleaning house. When I reminded him about my school obligations, he dismissed them, saying that “business school is kindergarten compared to law school.”

We had hit an impasse. I began to just fix myself an easy snack in the evening and let Richard fend for himself. Sometimes he would come in the kitchen to make a peanut butter sandwich without saying a word. Other times, he would order a pizza or Chinese food, having it delivered to the outside door of the den, and not offer any to me. Things got pretty tense. That spring semester was a time I never want to repeat!

In June I took a class called “Managing Organizational Conflict” taught by Daniel Dana, in which I learned about Self Mediation. Although it was a course in business school, I knew that I could use what I was learning at home just as well.

I decided to ask Richard for time to talk about our impasse. He agreed, despite his study schedule. I have always trusted that Richard is committed to our marriage and is willing to work on it. We decided to fix breakfast together the next Sunday morning and then talk as long as necessary to find some solutions to our work and family balancing act.

Richard described how unfair he felt it was to have to jeopardize his performance in law school to do housework. He claimed that other law students did not have any responsibilities other than school. (I still don’t believe that is true. There are lots of married women in law school and I doubt that their husbands do all the housework. But I didn’t argue this point with him.) In reply, I described how unfair I felt it is to be burdened with extra duties while I also have school obligations. Besides, it was Richard’s decision to quit his job to attend law school – why should I have to sacrifice for that? I recognized these concerns as the emotional issue of “justice,” as described in Managing Differences.

The Breakthrough happened when Richard revealed that he was feeling afraid that he wasn’t smart enough to excel in law school, and that he had made a big mistake by quitting his job to undertake this challenge. When he opened up to me about his fear, I just melted. I expressed my confidence in him and gave him a long, warm hug. He immediately became much more sympathetic to my needs. That was an obvious Breakthrough!

We decided to make a list together of all the household tasks that had to get done. Then we took turns selecting one task that we would do until all had been taken. We also decided to spend every Sunday morning together, away from school work. We both now really look forward to Sunday mornings to keep our cooperative spirit going. Today is November 18, and it’s still working!

Case #2: That’s Not Your Job!

Janet and I are registered nurses who work the evening shift in a large teaching hospital. Janet is in the Education Division, and I am a Shift Supervisor in the Clinical Division. We must interact often, so we have an “ongoing interdependent relationship.”

Several weeks ago Janet began attending shift report meetings at which clinical information about patients is passed along from one shift to the next. Sometimes she would make comments of a clinical nature while patient reports were being given. It thought that it was unnecessary for her to attend, and that it was inappropriate for her to comment on patients that she had not seen. Besides, her job was in Education, not in Clinical.

So, when Janet appeared at the start of a shift report meeting last week, I politely (I thought!) asked her not to attend. She became upset and stormed out of the room. She quit coming to any of the shift report meetings where I was present and began acting cool toward me. And, she took up to thirty minutes to respond to my pages for her. She also failed to notify me of important information about training events. I recognize these behaviors as examples of Wrong Reflex #1: Distancing.

All this happened before I read Managing Differences. Since my relationship with Janet was not getting any better on its own, I decided to try Self Mediation.

I approached Janet and told her I wanted to meet with her to discuss the breakdown in our relationship “for the good of the hospital.” At first, she was reluctant but finally agreed to meet me in a conference room. I began the meeting by thanking her for joining me to “talk it out.” I stated my view of the problem as the lack of communication between us that had been going on since I asked her not to attend shift report meetings. Janet responded angrily that I was too protective of my role and that I overreacted whenever she tried to be involved. She also felt that I viewed her role as unimportant and that I didn't like her.

I explained that I felt our roles were different and complementary, but that one is not more important than the other. I also said that her late responses to my pages sometimes made me look bad to people who were waiting for me to get back to them with the information I needed from her. She apologized and said she would be more prompt in the future – a “conciliatory gesture.” I immediately thanked her for that commitment.

Janet went on to explain that she was embarrassed by the way I told her I didn’t want her to attend shift report meetings, since other people were in the room at the time. I apologized for my bad timing and explained my reasons. I said that, although she is a registered nurse, she had not seen the patients being reported on. And, I disclosed that there had been some comments from the arriving shift that they saw her input as being more distracting than helpful. Janet said that she understood better “where I was coming from,” and suggested that we clarify how our roles should interface – “Breakthrough!”

We made a Deal that Janet would be welcome to attend report meetings as an observer in order to keep her “finger on the pulse” of educational needs of staff in the Clinical Division. She also agreed to send a written memo to me two weeks prior to any planned educational sessions. She also agreed to respond to my pages within ten minutes.

The Deal is working thus far (three weeks after our Dialogue). It is a both-gain solution, since each of us are benefiting. This has been a real eye-opener for me about how simple and easy it is to work out petty misunderstandings that otherwise have negative consequences on our workplace environment, and potentially on patient care.

Case #3: A Marriage Saved?

Alex and I have been married for six years. I'm a stay-at-home mom of two little ones, and we have pretty traditional values about marriage. During our first year together we communicated fairly well, but we haven't done so well the past few years.

Some history: Sometimes, when I asked Alex to help in the kitchen, he became annoyed and disappears into his den, saying that he has work to do. This didn't seem fair, since I’ve always helped him when he asked me to. Besides, I didn’t really believe he was working in there. I think he was just hiding from me. I was also annoyed when Alex left his coat and shoes lying around as soon as he arrived home from work, after I've spent the day cleaning our home. I didn't understand why we couldn't work as a team around the house. I thought he should take more pride in our home. I also was upset that when I made suggestions to Alex for solutions to simple problems, he felt attacked and got angry.

Alex had received a copy of Managing Differences in a training program at work, and I saw it lying on the sofa. One afternoon I sat down and read it and thought Self Mediation might help us. That evening, I asked him if he had read it, but he said he hadn't had time. I know that Alex has never been interested in subjects like that.

A couple of days later I asked Alex if he would be willing to meet with me to talk about our problems, as the book recommends. At first, he didn’t want to, but when I offered that he pick the time and place, he agreed. We decided to meet after dinner the following night while our kids were at a party at a neighbor's house. Because he usually avoids arguments with me, it was important that “Walk-aways” be prevented. So, I asked him to agree to not walk out of our meeting, even if he got upset. He said he thought he could do that, “just this once.”

When we started our “Dialogue,” I said that I appreciated his willingness to talk. I said that I understood his discomfort about conversations like this, that he feels like they are fights. I reminded him that the book said that this could only work if we stayed face-to-face until we talked through the problem.

Although I thought our problems were much deeper, I decided to focus our conversation on a pretty non-threatening issue: “How to spend our evening time.” I knew that I couldn’t start out by telling him about my complaints, so I invited him to start by telling me about his feelings and ideas about the issue. I just acted like an interviewer who didn’t have a personal interest in the matter. I asked lots of open-ended questions that couldn’t be answered by yes or no or other short answers. This got him to share more of himself.

Alex seemed on guard at first, but eventually opened up and said that he felt I was always “nagging” at him, and that he hated to be told what to do. This made me angry because my father used to call my mother a “nag” and I promised myself that I would never do that. Our discussion got pretty heated. Once Alex stood up to walk out, but I reminded him that he promised to stay, so he sat down. He is really uncomfortable with “fights.” Finally, I broke down and cried. I told Alex how much our marriage meant to me, and that I was afraid of getting divorced.

I guess that made Alex realize how much pain I had been in, and he said he wanted to work things out too. He actually cried too, which I had never seen him do. I recognized this as a “Breakthrough,” because we had both made conciliatory gestures that exposed our vulnerability. The shift from you-against-me to us-against-the-problem had taken place, and we were able to work as a team to resolve our problems.

I explained that my “nagging” was just my attempts to be helpful, but I now understand that he felt controlled by me. He explained that he ignored my requests and suggestions in order to maintain his independence. Once we identified this as the problem, I realized that I had had the “Bad Person Illusion” about Alex, thinking that he was lazy and didn’t care about our marriage. And he realized that he had the Bad Person Illusion about me as being a nag.

Our “Deal” was pretty simple: I would give him space, and he would pay attention to the things that he knew bothered me about our home. And, we agreed to find some time one evening each week to talk about our annoyances with each other. We hadn’t felt so close since the very beginning of our marriage. It’s been three months since our first Dialogue, and our relationship is better than ever.

I shudder to think what might have happened if I hadn’t found that book on the sofa. It took us over two hours to talk it out; Alex and I had never talked that long about a problem before. I’m convinced that if we hadn’t started communicating, our marriage would have been in trouble. We still have problems, but I’m optimistic that, if we keep communicating this way, we’ll stay together forever.

Case #4: Aftermath of Downsizing

I am an Analyst for an insurance company based in Hartford, Connecticut. I work in a small team that reviews work for our Claims staff. Rose is a Consultant on the team. The title of Consultant is more glamorous and is one job class higher than that of Analyst. Until recently, our team consisted of four Analysts and four Consultants.

Earlier this year, our company went through a major reorganization that reduced the size of our Claims department. The Consultant positions were eliminated, and three new Re-inspector Chief positions were created. Rose did not get one of the three new positions and was moved to an Analyst position.

Rose has been with the company for nearly twenty years and is very good at what she does. She is outspoken to the point of abrasiveness sometimes and displays her knowledge and authority at every opportunity. By nature, I am somewhat reserved and generally a rather quiet person.

As a result of the reorganization, I assumed the responsibility of the Catastrophe Coordinator. As the title indicates, this role involves responding to storms, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. The Catastrophe Coordinator works with claim handlers, sets up offices, responds to the news media, and acts as a liaison to our department heads. I viewed being Catastrophe Coordinator as a lot of extra work but welcomed the new responsibilities. Rose had expressed interest in the position, viewing it as prestigious, and was upset at not receiving the appointment.

Last February a severe ice storm crippled New York. I approached Rose, who had handled storms over the years, to solicit her advice. She was distinctly unhelpful. I knew Rose was a valuable resource. Being new in the position of Catastrophe Coordinator, I really needed her expertise.

I had recently attended a corporate seminar on “How to Resolve Workplace Conflict” in which we learned how to use Self Mediation. Managing Differences was included in the package of course materials that each participant received. So, I decided to “talk it out” with Rose.

I asked her if we could talk to clarify our new responsibilities subsequent to the reorganization. I was careful not to imply that she was doing anything wrong; I framed it as “our” problem, not as a criticism of her. Rose did not at first feel it was necessary, but I appealed to her sense of duty to the company, saying, “You and I might have our differences, but we are both employees of [the company] – we are paid well for doing our jobs the best we can. We owe it to [the company] to work together well, don’t you agree?” I invited Rose to select a time and place convenient for her. She suggested the next morning at 7:30 in a particular conference room. I usually don’t come to work until 8:30 (we work on a flex-time system), but I readily agreed to the time she preferred.

The floodgates opened as soon as we sat down at 7:30. Rose (who is fifteen years older than I) criticized me for being inexperienced and not ready for the responsibilities of Catastrophe Coordinator. I responded that it was indeed a challenge, but that I feel I can learn quickly. Besides, it was someone else, not I, who gave me the assignment. Rose also complained about the new structure, feeling that there will be costly consequences to the company due to the elimination of the Consultant positions. I agreed and again pointed out that it was not I who made those decisions.

When I read Managing Differences, I was intrigued with the idea of acting as a “spearcatcher” to diffuse the other person’s anger. So, I just let Rose vent her frustrations on me. I suppressed my own pique at being blamed for things that were not my fault, trying not to defensively argue with her. I just tried to ask her questions to let her elaborate on how she felt after the downsizing.

Eventually, Rose expressed her feelings of being lost and no longer an important part of the company. She also revealed her own anxieties about being terminated, and how difficult it would be to get a job at her age. I found myself feeling genuinely sympathetic toward her, understanding her fears of losing her status and her job this late in her career.

I guess I expressed my sympathy effectively so that Rose felt I was not against her. After a while, she said, “How can I help you?” It was a powerful Breakthrough. I took the opportunity to request her help with the immediate crisis of the New York ice storm. I also said that I truly valued her expertise and that I needed “mentoring” by someone with her knowledge of the business. Rose seemed sincerely flattered by my desire to learn from her. We agreed that I could call on her any time I needed for advice on any part of my job.

The “Deal” in Self Mediation is supposed to be balanced and behaviorally specific. My Deal with Rose was not very behaviorally specific, and at first it seemed to be unbalanced in my favor. This concerned me. But I’ve come to recognize that what Rose gets out of the Deal is affirmation of her knowledge and experience. In fact, she has mentioned to others on our team that she is my “mentor.” That’s fine with me.

Case #5: Interdepartmental Conflict

I am an owner and vice president of ODF Industries, a manufacturer of aircraft engine components. In this business, it is imperative that there be strict adherence to the customer's delivery demands.

An unmet delivery was recently brought to my attention and caused me to become involved in a conflict between our manufacturing supervisor, Tom, and our inspection department manager, Miguel. I received a call from a customer inquiring about his order. After discussing the order with our production control manager, I was informed that the order had not been shipped and would probably be delayed several more days.

My brother, who is the Financial Officer of ODF Industries, recently gave me his copy of Managing Differences. I was particularly interested in the chapter about “Simple Mediation,” which describes how a manager can facilitate dialogue between two employees. The Tom and Miguel conflict seemed to be just the kind of problem that Managerial Mediation is suited for. So I decided to give it a try.

First, I discussed the problem with both Tom and Miguel separately in individual preliminary meetings. It seems that Tom had delivered the order to Miguel for inspection and shipping just in time but had also delivered two other orders at the same time. Miguel felt that Tom had repeatedly been insensitive to the impact of “bottlenecking” orders into the inspection department at the same time. Miguel felt that Tom was intentionally trying to make his department look bad. Tom vigorously denied doing so, explaining that the manufacturing department just schedules the orders as they come in and can’t control the timing any more than Miguel can.

After hearing each manager’s side of the story, I explained that I wanted to meet with them together the next day to improve coordination between their departments. I described my role as like that of a “traffic cop” who will help them talk to each other but will not decide how to solve the problem myself. (This means that I would be acting as a mediator, not as an arbitrator. But I didn’t use those terms while talking with the two men.) I emphasized that the purpose of the meeting would not be to decide who was at fault for the current problem. Instead, our focus would be on planning to prevent future recurrences of the problem.

The “three-way meeting” was held in a neutral office where interruptions could be controlled. After reminding Tom and Miguel of my role as mediator, I asked them to comment on their perceptions of the problem. After a short delay, Tom stated that his responsibility had been completed in a timely manner and that the late delivery was Miguel’s fault. Miguel countered that Tom did not acknowledge the unanticipated workload on Miguel's staff caused by Tom's presentation of other equally important jobs. Miguel pointed out that he had numerous, unanticipated demands on his time, whereas Tom was able to direct his problems to other departments. There was a brief silence, and then Tom advised Miguel of several problems and unforeseen circumstances he had dealt with in the past few days. There was a lull in the conversation, and the frustration among the two parties was evident.

After a few moments of silence, Miguel said he realized that Tom's job was one with a lot of responsibility, and he did not mean to imply that Tom's job had less responsibility than his (a “conciliatory gesture”). Then he went on to say that he sometimes felt that Tom acted like he was his boss. Tom started to deny this, but I knew that I had to support Miguel’s conciliatory gesture. So, I interrupted Tom to ask Miguel to say more about his remark about recognizing the responsibilities in Tom’s job. Miguel proceeded to credit Tom with handling a lot of very demanding obligations very capably. Tom responded by saying much the same thing about Miguel. I saw the Breakthrough happening right there before my eyes!

I seized upon this window of opportunity by asking both of them to suggest improvements in how to coordinate the flow of orders between their departments. Without getting too technical in this case report, I’ll just say that they worked together as a team to come up with some significant enhancements. I jotted down notes about their ideas as they spoke. I brought the meeting to a close by congratulating Miguel and Tom on the mature and competent way they resolved the problem. I also said that I would have my secretary organize my notes into a memo outlining their ideas and give them each a copy for review and corrections, if needed.

That was over two months ago. I have held three follow-up meetings to troubleshoot their plan, but few problems have arisen. More importantly, the few problems that did surface were quickly fixed in a cooperative spirit.

In summary, my use of Managerial Mediation was a success. It is so simple, but I had never thought to approach problems like this in the past. I was amazed at how easy it was to use, and how effective it was in opening lines of communication and allowing the people involved to develop their own solutions to the problems. I’ve scheduled a training session to enable all managers and supervisors at ODF Industries to mediate employee conflicts.

Case #6: But They Said You Said . . . !

I have learned from working for Housing Services at the University that conflict is inevitable. As a Resident Director, I have been witness to or even directly involved with many different conflicts. The conflict I would like to describe for you is one between two Resident Assistants who were responsible for different floors within the same building. Kelly was new, while Rebecca had been a Resident Assistant last year.

Understandably, Kelly tried hard to fit in to the group. Rebecca soon came to me complaining that Kelly was disruptive, untrustworthy, manipulative, and overbearing. It seems two of Rebecca's friends had had classes with Kelly, so Rebecca believed what her friends said. The residents on Rebecca’s floor also claimed that Kelly had been making uncomplimentary comments about Rebecca's abilities as a Resident Assistant.

In my position as the supervisor of both, I decided to try Managerial Mediation to settle this conflict. As a psychology major who intends to go to graduate school next year, I had read Managing Differences over the summer. Since both women had come to me complaining of problems, I had no difficulty getting them to agree to a meeting. I held a brief preliminary meeting with each one separately mostly to explain my role as a mediator.

To start off the mediation session, I stated that I was pleased that they both wanted to work out this problem. I established the Cardinal Rules by explaining that we must stay until we reach a conclusion (no “Walk-aways”) and that we would seek a both-gain solution (no “Power-plays”). We agreed on the importance of confidentiality. I explained once again my role, not as a member of the discussion or a decision-making judge, but rather as a facilitator of the Dialogue between them.

Rebecca started by blaming Kelly for the problems they were having (the “Bad Person Illusion”). Soon both were getting out pent-up feelings and clearing up some misunderstandings and miscommunications. They found they had both been listening to other people and trusting them instead of each other. Also, they realized that the residents had used them against each other to get their way. So quickly it was no longer Rebecca and Kelly against each other, but Rebecca and Kelly against the problem.

They agreed to check out questions about each other’s behavior in the future, rather than just assume that what they heard was true. We also agreed to have a ten minute “tune up” meeting each week for the next month. It has now been three months, and Kelly and Rebecca have become friends.

I am so proud that my first attempt at mediating went so well. I am looking forward to future occasions to prove its value.

Appendix 4:

MANAGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES

Karen likes to spend a half-hour each week privately with each of her employees to sound out their concerns about the office. David, her colleague in another work unit, thinks this practice is not only a waste of time, but also is unwise. “Why take the lid off Pandora’s box?” he asks.

Guillermo, 32 years old and married with four children, recently declined a promotion that would have required moving to a city 800 miles away. He explained that he does not want to leave his seven brothers and sisters and their families who live nearby. Luther, who works closely with Guillermo, thinks it is a sign of immaturity that his Hispanic colleague would give up this career opportunity for reasons that he should have grown out of by this age. Luther’s respect for Guillermo is reduced one notch.

James, who grew up in an inner-city black neighborhood, is being interviewed for a sales position by Lisa, who is white. Lisa notices that James does not maintain eye contact while listening to her. She forms an immediate impression that James lacks assertiveness and will probably not be able to handle important clients.

Some facts

The Hudson Institute in its landmark study Workforce 2000: Work and Workers for the 21st Century (1987), and again in Workforce 2020 (1997), has documented the rapid cultural diversification in American workplaces. Considering these facts along with the warp-speed globalization of business, only the most myopic observer could fail to conclude that the days of white male hegemony in the arena of the workplace are over. Workers comprise an increasingly rainbow coalition. The challenge of managing culture-based differences at work is upon us.

In reply to this challenge, “managing cultural diversity” has become one of the hottest topics in the training industry. Many presentations at annual national conferences of the American Society for Training and Development and other human resource professional associations address cross-cultural issues. Consulting firms specializing in helping organizations manage cultural diversity abound.

Facing the challenge

The usual response is to conduct programs designed to raise the awareness of dominant-culture employees about the values and norms of other groups:

· David seems unaware that women tend to focus on relationship issues more than do men.

· Luther seems unaware the Hispanics place a higher value on extended family relationships than do most Anglos.

· Lisa seems unaware that blacks from some subcultures within the United States keep eye contact while speaking but not while listening, the reverse of the pattern typical of majority-culture whites.

Information like this is typically conveyed in cross-cultural training programs for dominant-culture employees. The assumption underlying such “awareness” training is that, after completion of the program, participants are supposed to not only understand minority cultures better, but also to change how they behave toward their members.

But is awareness enough? Does awareness training work?

Reasons for concern

Simply informing members of today’s organizations about cultural differences is an incomplete strategy for helping workmates bridge the gaps that impair cooperative work. To achieve maximum benefit, information should be supplemented with behaviorally specific skills or “tools” that equip trainees with practical techniques for solving workplace problems that derive from culture-based differences. Awareness is a first step but alone is insufficient.

Consider these factors:

1) Resistance to change

Majority-culture trainees may perceive that some personal shortcoming is being “fixed” by the training. Or, they may feel personally blamed for creating the inequities often encountered by minority-culture employees. Or, they may perceive, perhaps accurately, that the political power they enjoy as dominant-culture members is in jeopardy of being eroded by cross-cultural training. In short, they perceive that their self-interests are threatened.

When self-interest is threatened, defensiveness is automatically and instinctively aroused (recall discussion of the Retaliatory Cycle in chapter 18). When we feel defensive, we naturally resist the threat. Resistance can take many forms. Resistance to cross-cultural training can take forms such as:

· Refusing to allow insight into one’s own behavior and motivations to occur

· Doubting the validity of the information presented

· Criticizing the quality of the training program

· Perceiving the seminar leader, especially one of a minority culture, as being self-serving or prejudiced against the dominant culture

· Simply forgetting or not using the information provided.

In any case, resistance undermines awareness-building efforts to bridge culture-based differences in the organization. To be sure, cultural awareness training can be a powerful and enlightening experience for those who wish to learn. It may not be so for those on whom it is thrust.

2) Inherent bias

By conducting training primarily for the “benefit” of dominant-culture employees, providers of cultural diversity programs place the onus of responsibility on members of the dominant culture to accommodate to the needs of other groups. The program design may imply that minority-culture members already know plenty about the dominant culture’s norms and values. Or, seminar designers may feel that members of minority groups do not have as much responsibility for bridging cultural differences because they are the low-power or victimized party in the cross-cultural relationship.

This bias may or may not be intended. Even when intended, it may not be explicitly stated by the seminar leader, hoping instead to bring change in a Trojan horse. But if dominant-culture employees are discriminately selected for training, or if training is directed at the “culture blindness” of the dominant-culture group, it is a message heard clearly by trainees.

Further, organizations that focus cross-cultural training on the awareness deficiencies of dominant-culture employees do a disservice to their minority and female employees: Dominance of the dominant-culture is perpetuated. How? By being given primary responsibility for change, members of the dominant-culture remain in the driver’s seat – they are still in power, they are still the ones with options. Minorities are kept dependent on the choices of dominant-culture members – if a white male trainee chooses to do nothing different after attending the training program, then discrimination continues. So, awareness-based training may actually backfire. It may maintain the very power imbalance that it seeks to alter.

3) No tools

In spite of these factors, let’s grant that information about cultural differences is presented, and that it is learned. Awareness is achieved. Then what? What is the program participant expected to do with it? What practical behavioral tools are provided that will enable him to manage those differences with minority colleagues more effectively? Too often, trainees are left in the dilemma of the automobile mechanic who knows how to fix the problem but lacks the tools to apply her knowledge.

An alternative

So, what alternatives exist to training that is based only on building cultural awareness? How can we achieve a more integrated multicultural workforce in which differences arising from cultural values and behavioral norms are not only recognized, but are also effectively managed?

While disseminating information about cultural values and norms is a well-intentioned effort, real organizational change requires that training include behavioral tools – tools with which both majority- and minority-culture employees can initiate problem-solving dialogue. Tools that are equally powerful, no matter whose hands are at the controls. Tools that make no value judgment, explicitly or implicitly, about whose side of a difference is more right. Tools that work.

Self Mediation is such a tool – indeed, it may be regarded as a core competency of a multicultural workforce. It empowers individuals of any ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, and of either gender, to initiate dialogue in search of common ground with Others. Our cultural backgrounds are one source of differences, an important one. But differences that impair workplace productivity arise from many sources. As individuals, we are more than just our cultural identity. Self Mediation is a tool for managing differences regardless of their origin – cross-cultural or “cross-personal.”

Whether you are of African, Asian, European, Hispanic, Native American, mixed, or any other ethnic origin, and whether you identify as female or male, you can empower yourself to implement your own individual “cultural diversity program” Use Self Mediation to engage colleagues with whom you clash in dialogue to seek mutually acceptable solutions to workplace problems. If you perceive your Other’s behavior as arising from culture-based stereotypes or prejudices, those perceptions can be part of your dialogue.

Your differences on disputed workplace issues may reside in culture-based values and styles of behavior, and it is certainly worthwhile to learn how your Other differs from you in these ways. But, beneath our culture, our ethnicity, our sexual orientation, and our gender identity, we share fundamentally human qualities. Self Mediation draws on our basic human nature to bring us to common ground. The “forces toward harmony” discussed in chapter 19 are unique to no culture – indeed, they are not even unique to humans. Their origins lie deep in our evolutionary past, in the adaptations of the ancestors common to humans and other present-day species who display the inhibitory reflex and other behavioral responses during conflict.

Culture-compatibility

To be sure, certain components of the four-step Self Mediation method are more compatible with the norms of some cultures than with others – that is, they are less unfamiliar, and so less uncomfortable, for some people than for others. But choosing to avoid the Wrong Reflexes, and taking initiative to solve an interpersonal problem, are unfamiliar and challenging tasks for most of us, no matter which culture we call home. Our tendencies to Distance and Coerce, and the Illusions from which these reflexive behaviors spring, are rooted in universal human nature. So, our reluctance to use Self Mediation is more human than it is cultural.

In fact, this practical communication tool presents an opportunity for members of non-dominant groups who find themselves disempowered by the prevailing politics of their organizations to take charge of managing differences in relationships that matter. Large-scale social change and eradication of cultural prejudice may come someday, but why wait for Godot? Act now to improve the relationships that affect you today.

GLOSSARY

Aggression Behavior that is intended by its exhibitor to harm the interests of its target.

Ambivalence The coexistence of opposing or incompatible attitudes, needs or interests in the same individual, resulting in uncertainty about alternative courses of action.

Bad Person Illusion The perceptual phenomenon of erroneously attributing the cause of an interpersonal conflict to the defective personal characteristics of the Other.

Blips Conflicts of minor importance that are resolved or disappear spontaneously. (Level 1 conflicts)

Both-gain An attitudinal and behavioral stance by a person in conflict in which the possibility of mutually beneficial outcomes is assumed.

Boulder-in-the-Road Illusion The phenomenon of erroneously perceiving impossibility of resolving a conflict.

Breakthrough The occurrence during face-to-face issue-focused dialogue of a mutual shift of attitude by both partners from “me-against-you” to “us-against-the-problem.”

Cardinal Rules Guidelines for engaging in communication with others that prevent behaviors that manifest the “wrong reflexes.”

Clashes Conflicts that, if disregarded, impair the capacity of relationships to satisfy the needs of its partners. (Level 2 conflicts)

Coercion The behavioral strategy for coping with interpersonal conflict involving the exercise or threat of force to overwhelm the resistance put forth by the Other to impose a one-sided solution (Wrong Reflex #2). See also Power-plays.

Cognitive Dissonance The inherent discomfort resulting from experiencing two or more mental events (beliefs, attitudes, values, perceptions) that are incompatible with each other.

Conciliatory Gestures Uncoerced behaviors, typically verbal, that display vulnerability to one's opponent in conflict.

Conflict A condition between two interdependent people in which one or both feel angry at the other and perceive the other as being at fault.

Crises Conflicts that threaten the continuation of a relationship. (Level 3 conflicts)

Deal The balanced, behaviorally specific, written agreement that is reached as a result of using Self Mediation.

Dialogue The face-to-face, issue-focused verbal communication that occurs during step 3 of Self Mediation.

Difference A state of disparity in needs, values, attitudes, goals, or self-interests between two individuals in ongoing, interdependent relationship.

Distancing The behavioral strategy for coping with interpersonal conflict involving withdrawal from contact with one’s adversary (Wrong Reflex #1). See also Walk-aways.

Self Mediation A behaviorally specific procedure for managing differences between people in ongoing, interdependent, two-person relationships. (Labeled “4-Step Method” in the first edition.)

Emotional Issues Matters of concern to persons in conflict that represent the psychological needs whose satisfaction is sought in the relationship.

Essential Process Face-to-face talking between two people about the issues on which they differ without interruption for as long as necessary to reach the Breakthrough.

Inhibitory Reflex The instinctive response to a conciliatory gesture displayed by an opponent in conflict, resulting in termination or suspension of aggressive behavior.

Interpersonal Pertaining to two individuals.

Issues Matters of concern to persons in conflict on which incompatible positions are held. (See Emotional, Pseudo-substantive, Substantive).

Mediation The role of a neutral third party in facilitating the search for mutually acceptable, self-determined agreements between disputants.

Negotiation The process of searching for agreement between people who have apparently different self-interests.

Other One's partner in an on-going, interdependent, two-person relationship.

Polarization The tendency toward defining opposite positions on issues in conflict.

Position The preferred solution to a disputed issue that is put forth by a party in conflict.

Power-plays The behaviors that implement the strategy of Coercion (Wrong Reflex #2).

Projection The process of attributing to the Other one's unwanted feelings, attitudes, values, and beliefs that are incompatible with other such aspects of self, thereby resolving one's intrapsychic ambivalence about a disputed issue.

Pseudo-substantive Issues Matters of concern to persons in conflict that are unconsciously represented falsely as substantive issues but are in fact wholly or partially manifestations of emotional issues.

Retaliatory Cycle An iterative process in which two persons in conflict engage in mutual retribution and defensive counter-attack.

Substantive Issues Matters of concern that accurately represent the objective self-interest of the person.

Walk-aways The behaviors that implement the strategy of Distancing (Wrong Reflex #1).

Win-Lose Illusion The phenomenon of erroneously or prematurely assuming that no both-gain outcome is possible.

Wrong Reflexes Automatic attitudinal and behavioral responses to conflict that derive from the “fight” and “flight” impulses. (See Distancing and Coercion).

ADDENDUM: The Promise of Mediation

The following is the text of a keynote speech written and delivered by the author for a mediation conference at Swarthmore University, Nairobi, Kenya, 25 July 2018. Adapted for general audiences under the title Interpersonal Peacemaking: Quelling the Conflicts that Disrupt Our Lives,

The Promise of Mediation:

Mitigating the Conflicts that Disrupt Our Lives

Selected by the Professional Speechwriters Association

for Vital Speeches International, September 2018.

To request a speaker to deliver a customized interactive PowerPoint-supported version of this presentation based on this material, contact Mediation Training Institute at Eckerd College: www.mediationworks.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I will meet you there.

Those words are from Rumi, a poet and philosopher who lived 800 years ago in Persia, in what is now Afghanistan.

I intend, in our few minutes together today, to unpack the profound wisdom and practical guidance that is imbedded in Rumi’s statement, especially for those of us who strive to mediate conflict in human relations. Let me repeat it:

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I will meet you there.

Rumi’s deep insight into the essence of human conflict, and how we might manage it, is as relevant today as it was in his time 800 years ago, and will surely remain relevant for another 800 years. Indeed, I believe his truth applied when humans first developed language some 100,000 years in the past, and that truth will still pertain to the daily lives of our own descendants 100,000 years into the future. Human nature changes slowly.

So, my message here today pertains not only to today, nor even just to our current generation, but to the entire span of human existence on this planet. Conflict, and our struggle to manage it, is as inherent to our humanity as wet is to water. We must deal with it. To ignore it is to fail – to fail ourselves and to fail our fellow-travelers along this perilous road of life.

The word “conflict” means different things to different people. Even mediators define it differently. Some mediators are lawyers, who are trained in the adversarial arts. Many mediators come from other fields of endeavor. I happen to be a psychologist. My training was in behavioral science. From a psychological perspective, conflict has structural, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components:

First, structurally, it is a condition BETWEEN people. Conflict does not occur within a person. It is a product of human relationships. It is a social condition in every marriage, family, workplace, community, business enterprise, government agency, and nation. And, as newspaper headlines report daily, conflict flourishes between countries, cultures, and every other category of people on our planet. Wherever there is a distinction between “self” and “other,” between “me” and “you,” between “us” and “them,” conflict rears its vexatious head – it intrudes, it disrupts, and, if poorly managed, it destroys.

Second, people in conflict are INTERDEPENDENT. We need each other. At the very least, “I need YOU to get out of MY way so I can have what I want.” Often, the needs for which we depend on others are financial, practical, and tangible. But, the most important needs we have of others are intangible: “I need your attention, your creative ideas, your support, your honest labor, and from certain others, of course, your love.” Life without the benefits we receive from other people would be unsustainable, and perhaps even not worth living. It may be true, theoretically, that people who are not interdependent have no conflict. But no one is an island in the social sea that surrounds us.

The third element is: People in conflict are ANGRY. Anger is, of course, an emotion. Indeed, it is the defining emotion of conflict. That is, when anger is not present, people are simply in rational disagreement. Simple, unemotional disagreements can be resolved by reasonable compromise, or by simply ignoring our differences. True, anger can be suppressed and may not be outwardly expressed. Sometimes it is unconscious and denied, even hidden from ourselves. But, anger is present in every conflict. Anger functions as the fuel that supplies the energy that drives conflict. Subjects about which we may disagree, but that do not evoke anger, can be discussed rationally and answers can be easily found. We can even amicably agree to disagree. I may believe blue is the most beautiful color, where you may prefer green. Mox nix – there is no necessity that we agree about that. But anger, whether overtly expressed or unconsciously suppressed, makes conversation difficult on subjects about which we need to find a common path forward that we must walk together.

Next, the fourth element of our definition: People FIND FAULT with their partners in the dance of conflict – that is, with their opponents. It may seem to me that “our conflict is entirely due to your stupidity, your selfishness, your stubbornness, or other faults in YOU that I perceive as the cause of our impasse.” “I believe that if only you would change those things about you, our conflict would be easily and quickly resolved.” Simple! Of course, this perception of fault is nearly always reciprocal – you believe it is my stupidity, my selfishness, my stubbornness that is the obstacle to agreement. We both perceive the other to be the one at fault. This is the cognitive component of conflict.

Fifth, and finally, we BEHAVE in ways that make our disagreement a problem. Without behavior, that is, without acting out our anger in ways that splash our bile on others, conflict would not be a concern. There would be no demand for a solution.

So, why are we this way? Where did these psychological elements of conflict come from?

We owe to our prehistoric ancestors the two natural behaviors that we commonly use to cope with conflict. In my contributions to the literature of our field, I call these behaviors walk-aways and power-plays, also known as the “flight or fight” reflex. We may seek to avoid the troublesome opponent, or, if forced to interact, we seek to overpower him or her with our superior logic, morals, or muscles, or, more tragically, our weapons. We may at first imagine that we can handle the situation by distancing ourselves from the other, that is, by avoiding direct interaction altogether. If distancing fails, and we are compelled to engage, we imagine that we can WIN by coercing the other, forcing him or her to comply with our demands. I can flee, or I can fight. These are my instinctive reactions when threats to my safety arise. In my primitive brain, the brain that has been evolving and adapting for millions – actually, hundreds of millions – of years, these are my only two options. My primitive mind believes that my very survival depends on making the correct choice – and making it immediately.

The AMYGDALA is the primitive organ buried deep within our brains that evolution has constructed to help us survive in emergency situations, especially life-or-death situations. Should I escape from that predator, or should I fight back? “Do I eat it, or does it eat me?”

Our ancient ancestors’ lives depended on their answer. Every one of us in this room today is the descendent of an unbroken chain of millions of generations of successful ancestors who made good-enough choices in dangerous circumstances, at least good-enough long enough to procreate and thereby pass along their genetic code to the next generation. So, here we are in the year 2018, carrying the genetic baggage that our ancestors left for us.

In modern times, of course, we rarely encounter a dangerous predator to whom we look like food. But, our primitive amygdalas don’t know that anything has changed since our pre-human mammalian ancestors – who were small rodents at the time – shared the earth with dinosaurs, and even earlier. Our amygdalas continue to prompt us to react quickly and defensively to any perceived threat to our well-being. Our inner animal prepares us to react with either evasion or aggression, flight or fight, walk-aways or power-plays. These are the two forms of behavioral acting out that remain within us to this very day.

Acting out by means of aggression, which we have defined here as “power-play,” perpetuates a retaliatory cycle, in which “I get you back for the last time you got me back for the last time I got you back for the last time you got me back,” ad infinitum -- a vicious cycle of blame and retribution, attack and counter-attack, that continues until either (1) one of us is defeated by the other’s successful power-play, which forces compliance with the will of the victor, or (2) until we terminate our relationship by a final walk-away – a divorce, a resignation, a firing, or by just giving up.

The alternative way of acting out – that is, by evasion, or “walk-aways” – is no less harmful in our highly interdependent modern daily lives – at work and at home. By refusing to communicate, that is, by withdrawing from constructive participation in daily affairs, we also risk triggering a retaliatory cycle with others, just as we do by using power-plays. It is as if we say, “Well, if you’re going to avoid me, then I’ll avoid you, too.” We both retreat into our seemingly safe corners, which has the effect of draining our relationship of its value, of the very benefits that led us to join together in the first place. The terms “loveless marriage” and, in the workplace, “dead wood” have been invented to denote these sterile relationships.

What can mediators do when retaliatory cycles of power-plays and walk-aways have led to dysfunctional relationships, whether in open, obvious conflict, or in silent sterile stand-offs? What kinds of interventions by neutral third parties offer hope of resolution?

So far, I have painted a rather bleak picture of human nature. We seem doomed by our animal instincts to an awful dilemma, a bilateral choice between two stark options. But our reflex to either walk-away or power-play when faced with a threat is only part of the picture – only part of who we are. Fortunately, another instinct, a more hopeful one, lies awaiting our discovery. This peacemaking reflex is a powerful tool available to the observant mediator. We can leverage this conciliatory instinct to produce voluntary concessions toward reasonable compromise.

But first, let’s recognize that mediators operate in a wide range of settings, from the courts of justice to the factory floor to the family home. Some disputes, including civil cases in litigation, are settled by judges and juries.

This method of resolution is called adjudication – a method of achieving justice in which someone wins and someone loses. Judiciaries have devised alternatives to adjudication – called “alternative dispute resolution,” or ADR – which are less expensive and less time-consuming than courtroom procedures. Mediation and arbitration are among the forms of ADR that have become widely used in many countries in recent decades for reaching resolution of civil disputes. Generally, civil cases are settled by financial payments, which constitute the final gasp of the dying relationship between the disputing parties.

My career in the practice and teaching of mediation has involved disputes that are not amenable to settlement with money. That is, the parties will remain in an on-going interdependent relationship. They need to be able to interact cooperatively tomorrow, and the next day, and the next. How can the ability to behave cooperatively in the future be achieved? How can we become voluntarily willing to work together in a spirit of teamwork? How can a domestic couple in a troubled marriage recapture mutual affection and resume living together in a happy home? Clearly, not by financial settlement. As we all know well, money can’t buy happiness. Nor can it buy creative teamwork. Nor can it buy loyalty. Nor can it buy trust. What promise does mediation hold for people who are experiencing conflict in on-going interdependent relationships?

Let’s step back a moment and reflect on Harvard University professor William Ury’s observation that there are three, and only three, ways to approach any conflict: We can view it as a power contest, or as a rights contest, or as an interest-based effort to uncover overlapping self-interests, also called the common ground of the disputing parties, on which we may find reasonable and acceptable compromise, and sometimes even discover creative win-win solutions.

Before our ancestors invented laws, conflicts were normally handled as power contests – the individuals with the biggest muscles, the biggest clubs, or the most intimidating threats, were the winners. There was no recourse for weaker individuals beyond submitting to subjugation, or being banished from the tribe, or being left to die.

A great leap forward toward modern civilization occurred about 5,000 years ago – a mere blink of an eye in human history – when ancient Egyptians invented the first civil code, a set of rules containing the concepts of impartiality and social equality. Sumerians, Babylonians, and Assyrians further developed what we today consider “the law” in European tradition. Early societies in China, India, Africa, and the Americas also developed legal theories and practices for resolving conflicts nonviolently.

In modern judicial settings, where civil disputes are adjudicated by judges and juries, officers of the court rely on the rule of law to settle cases. Attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants argue that the rights of their client prevail over the rights of their opponent in litigation. Each side builds its argument on legislation, on settled law, and on past precedent in adversarial procedures such as trials and hearings. Judges and juries decide which side of the case is more supported by the body of law, thereby determining the winner. The application of law in this manner constitutes a rights contest, and produces what we call “justice.” Every citizen who wishes to live in a fair and just society would surely agree that rights contests are superior to unrestrained power contests and lawlessness.

In recent decades, several forms of mediation and arbitration have been devised to address concerns about excessive reliance on the courts to administer justice. Certain kinds of routine commercial disputes can be more quickly resolved by arbitration than by time-consuming and expensive court procedures. Divorcing couples, especially those who have dependent children, are better served by mediation of child custody and property distribution questions, which can preserve their ability to remain cooperative parents for the good of their children.

Arbitration is a non-judicial procedure involving an impartial third-party whose task is to assess the relative merits of the disputing parties. Arbitrators are not necessarily judges, nor even attorneys, and their conclusions are not necessarily based strictly on the law. Their decisions may be advisory or binding, depending on pre-agreed terms. Despite being informal, arbitration remains a rights-based approach to dispute resolution.

MEDIATION, on the other hand, and by its nature, is a non-adversarial, interest-based approach. It is here that Rumi reminds us that determining which party is the “wrong-doer” and which is the “right-doer” is not the task before us. He urges us to recognize that there is a “field” where common ground may be found. If our shared need is to live together in peace, or to work together cooperatively, the judgement of right or wrong, innocent or guilty, good or bad, does not advance our movement toward that common goal. To repeat:

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I will meet you there.

We mediators attempt to help disputing parties reach agreement based on their own, self-defined, underlying self-interests. We are neutral, which means we have no personal stake in the content of those agreements. And, we are impartial, meaning that we are unaligned with either party. We are in the service of agreement itself. I believe that all practicing mediators, whether in legal or in non-legal settings, would agree that these principles of neutrality and impartiality, applied in a mutual search for common ground bridging the self-interests of all disputants, define the very nature of our trade.

A few minutes ago, I hinted at the existence of an instinct that we modern humans have inherited from our ancient ancestors that can help us make peace instead of war, that can help us find reasonable compromise in contentious ongoing interdependent relationships. We can harness this instinct to help us find agreement, even where the disputing parties themselves have not thought it possible.

That instinct is the “conciliatory gesture.” Let me illustrate:

Imagine two animals, adult members of the same species, on a typical, lazy afternoon in the Serengeti. Their species is social, meaning that they live together in groups with an internal hierarchy. Their species is also predatory and territorial, meaning that they kill other animals for food, and protect invisible boundaries around their home turf, or hunting ground, from intrusion by others. That is, in the abstract, they make a distinction between “mine” and “not mine.”

Now, let’s imagine that one of the animals, let’s call him the “home-owner,” is peacefully lounging within the boundaries of his self-defined territory, enjoying his food, the companionship of trusted friends, his mates, his safety, and other resources.

Suddenly, the home-owner notices a stranger approaching. Once the stranger crosses that invisible line separating “mine” from “not mine,” a pattern of instinctive reactions is set in motion. The home-owner is compelled by instinct to challenge the intruding stranger – the survival of his species over eons of time has depended on fierce protection of owned or claimed resources.

He rushes to encounter the intruder, displaying aggressive behaviors intended to demonstrate his superior strength and fierce defense of what belongs to him. Usually, the intruder, who is venturing into a foreign land, is intimidated by the home-owner’s aggressive display and promptly withdraws beyond the boundary of the home-owner’s territory. Sometimes, however, the stranger feels he may be capable of successfully repelling and overcoming the home-owner’s defensive actions and, by doing so, acquire some of those coveted resources. A fight ensues. The two animals join in a battle for dominance. A territorial dispute is underway.

But, their battle is typically not a fight to the death. Adult members of the same species rarely actually kill each other. As predators, they kill animals not of their species for food, but they don’t kill their own kind. What prevents fatal outcomes of turf battles? How does their territorial dispute come to an end short of death? Of course, the “flight” reflex provides one avenue of escape. But sometimes all escape routes are blocked. What then? What can the defeated animal do to survive this encounter?

Another instinct, actually a pair of instincts acting in tandem, now comes into play. A hidden behavioral tool, designed over eons of evolution precisely for this situation, comes to the rescue. The first of this pair of instinctive tools is the “conciliatory gesture.” Members of species that are social and territorial are able to recognize the symbolic meaning of certain observable behaviors that are characteristic of their species. In some species, that behavior is rolling over to reveal their soft underbelly. In others, it is presenting the unprotected side of the neck. In others, it is averting their gaze from the victor’s eyes. Every species has its mutually recognized behavioral “language” to signal submission. But a feature that is common to ALL conciliatory gestures is voluntary vulnerability. It is as if the defeated animal is saying, “Here, I will not resist if you choose to kill me.”

But animals are not suicidal. The invitation offered by the “loser” to the “winner” to strike the fatal blow is made with the instinctive understanding that the winner will not accept the invitation. The submissive individual “knows” in his primitive animal brain that his conciliatory gesture will stimulate the second in our pair of instincts, which will enable him to survive this encounter with his life, if not his dignity and social status, intact. That second instinct is the “inhibitory reflex,” or the “inhibition of aggression.” He knows that the winner of this skirmish, whose sharp fangs are hovering over his vulnerable tummy ready to bite, will be muzzled by instinct from doing so. As long as his conciliatory gesture is convincingly authentic, the winner will not, in fact, exploit that vulnerability. A few tense moments may ensue, but the winner will reliably suspend hostilities, allowing the loser to slowly slink away from the humiliating scene, tail between his legs, in abject defeat. But as he leaves, he carries with him his genetic information, preserved by having survived this life-threatening encounter, ready to mate and pass along those genes to the next generation, and the next, and the next. We today are the descendants of those survivors. Obviously, we are not descendants of those who did not survive. This is evolution by natural selection in action.

This paired mechanism of the conciliatory gesture and the inhibitory reflex succeeds in preventing murder in nearly every social, territorial species of animal on earth … except one. That exception is us. Homo sapiens. We like to think we are “special” – yes, we are especially prone to violence among ourselves.

The dynamics of human conflict, compared with non-human species, are complicated by at least two characteristics that are unique to us: We have developed symbolic language. And, we have developed weapons technology.

Most modern-day conflict, in our families, our workplaces, and our communities, takes place by means of language, both written and spoken. Although language is vital to modern civilization, it also enables us to conceal our true intentions, or to partially reveal them through that uniquely human hybrid, “passive-aggression.” The trickery of blending both friendly and hostile messages into a mixed narrative, a word-stew of muddled ingredients, leads to misunderstanding of others’ true intentions and other communication pitfalls. The pages of social psychology textbooks are illustrated with the myriad ways that we simultaneously inform and deceive each other.

Before we developed weapons technology, our ancestors were limited mostly to the use of bare hands and feet to threaten or inflict harm on competitors and intruders. Our species lacks “natural” weapons – that is, fang teeth, sharp claws, and other body parts that serve as equipment for hunting and killing prey for food. Our present-day fingernails, our toenails, and our cuspids, or canine teeth, are vestigial body parts, shrunken remnants of once-useful tools that equipped our pre-human predecessors for hunting and for territorial battle. Only a few non-human species today employ tools that are not body parts – that is, “unnatural” weapons – for attacking others.

Notable among those species is our closest modern relative, our cousin the chimpanzee, with whom we share 96% of our DNA, and we share a common ancestor who lived about seven million years ago. Even today’s chimps are mostly limited to simple sticks and stones as tools for doing battle.

In periods of remarkable innovation since our evolutionary path parted ways from that of our modern chimp cousins, we humans have invented spears, sharpened stones, metal blades, explosives, guns, and even nuclear bombs to carry out our aggressive intentions. With each new level of advancing weapons technology, the aggressor is ever more distantly removed from direct observation of the victim. The victim’s conciliatory gestures may never be witnessed by the aggressor, thereby disabling the inhibitory reflex. The instinctual “inhibition of aggression” impulse is disarmed, removed from our inherited conflict management toolbox.

Thankfully, most conflicts with which mediators become involved are carried out with language, not with weapons. So, the presence of conciliatory gestures and the inhibitory reflex, which remain submerged within our psyches, is still discernable in our speech, and is accessible for strategic deployment by the perceptive mediator.

As I stated a few minutes ago, my career in mediation was devoted to interpersonal conflicts between people in ongoing interdependent relationships that had not escalated into the toxic realm of litigation. My focus has been on nettlesome conflicts in families, workplaces, and communities in which people desired to remain in relationship, but who were having difficulty making those relationships work to their satisfaction. As a non-attorney, I am reluctant to offer advice to mediators who work in judicial settings, although I am quite confident that we do not leave our human nature, and our social instincts, on the courthouse steps. I look forward to discussions at this conference about ways to apply our understanding of psychological dynamics to cases in litigation and in ADR methods of settlement.

Let’s now turn our attention from mediation as a field of professional practice, to the more commonplace matter of how everyday conflicts in our homes and workplaces may be effectively mediated, even by the parties themselves without the assistance of a trained professional.

Managerial Mediation may be the simplest possible form of neutral third-party intervention. As the term implies, it is most commonly used in organizations, where managers, team leaders, and human resource personnel, convene conversations between disputing employees to address workplace issues that are impeding performance, productivity, profitability, and quality of work life.

Happily, this procedure can also be used, with minor adjustments, in non-organizational settings, even in families. I recall a heartwarming case in which my middle-aged student reported mediating between her adult sister and their aging mother, who had been estranged for over twenty years. One conversation of only a couple of hours transformed their lives, restored their family bond, and brought immense emotional relief. So, managerial mediation is not just for managers.

But what can be done when a conflict involves oneself and another person with whom you personally have an ongoing interdependent relationship that matters to you – at work or at home, even with your spouse? Is there no recourse when there is no neutral third party available to mediate? I’m pleased to say that yes, you can do it yourself, with Self Mediation – that is, mediation without a mediator.

Thousands of my students over the years have reported using self-mediation to restore damaged friendships, to repair business partnerships, and even to rescue failing marriages from the slippery slope of growing alienation. I suspect some of you in this room may be thinking at this very moment of current or past relationships that have caused you concern, and that might have benefited from the healing dialog of self-mediation. Maybe it’s not too late!

I recognize that some professional mediators may object to my use of the term “mediation” for this process, since mediation is normally defined as the role of a third-party. In response, I argue that the functions of a mediator are, in fact, being performed – they are just not embodied in a separate, third party. Rather, they are embodied in the person who initiates the self-mediation process, the one who bravely, and skillfully, invites the other to have a conversation about a shared problem. Regardless of nomenclature, this procedure is a good way to talk constructively about troublesome differences and is certainly preferable to relying on walk-aways and power-plays – those inborn, instinctive, familiar tools that our ancient ancestors left in our genetic toolboxes.

You may believe that I have now reduced mediation to its simplest possible form. But bear with me one more step along this reductionist path. Let’s call this next, and final, step Preventive Mediation. If Managerial Mediation is mediation without a professional mediator, and Self Mediation is mediation without a third-party at all, Preventive Mediation is mediation without even holding a distinct “mediation event.” It stops conflict before it starts. It is mediation in real-time that does not require stopping work or other ongoing activity to perform it. Regular, habitual use of Preventive Mediation can help keep conflicts from arising at all. It takes place while life is going on. Others may not even realize that you are doing it. Let me explain, using concepts that we have already defined here today.

What if we were to integrate what we have learned these past few minutes about walk-aways, power-plays, conciliatory gestures, and the inhibitory reflex to create a simple formula for how we might conduct ourselves routinely, in everyday life? Consider adopting these four rules of engagement with your important people:

First, never WALK AWAY. Stay engaged. Initiate dialogue about the troublesome topic, and certainly never refuse your partner’s request to communicate. Once engaged, don’t yield to your impulse to quit in frustration. Your amygdala wants you to either fight to win or to leave the scene. Do neither. Act how you deliberately and rationally choose to act, not how your million-year-old instincts impel you to act.

Second, never POWER PLAY. That is, don’t use threat, intimidation, ultimatums, or even your authority as the other’s boss to win this battle. … Curb … your … amygdala!

Third, take the risk of offering CONCILIATORY GESTURES, even small ones, when you can do so sincerely. Consider the power of apology, which I call the “mother of all conciliatory gestures.” Make a modest concession. Offer a compliment. Express sympathy. To quote Beatle and songwriter John Lennon, “give peace a chance.” That is, dangle a conciliatory gesture in view of the other person. His or her inhibitory reflex may be triggered. If not this time, then perhaps the next. The breakthrough to peace often arrives on the wings of patience.

Fourth and finally, never exploit the other’s conciliatory gestures to score a point. Don’t interpret his cautious apology as admission of fault. Instead, express appreciation. Acknowledge his courage. Say “thank you.” Paradoxically, it takes strength to appear weak.

To state what should be obvious: If I will need you tomorrow – if I need your trustworthiness as my friend, your loyalty as my employee, your respect as my boss, your love as my spouse – the most self-destructive thing I can do is to win today’s fight with you. In the long game, I will not win if I cause you to lose. Using Preventive Mediation places the power tools of the expert mediator into the hands of every person to build a non-adversarial win-win normative climate in which our most important relationships can thrive. It is like giving water to a thirsty plant. A well-watered plant produces flowers that add beauty to our home.

You will notice that Managerial Mediation, Self Mediation, and Preventive Mediation – indeed all forms of mediation that attempt to repair broken relationships, or to sustain good ones – contain in their methods certain core principles that are so deeply imbedded in human nature, so logical, so obvious as to seem unnecessary to even mention – except that they are so often violated in the normal course of human affairs.

The first core principle is “Without communication, there can be no solution.” Its corollary is equally obvious: “Refusal to communicate ensures continuation of the conflict.” So, the mediator’s most fundamental task is to convene a conversation between the parties. As in all negotiations, the most important seat is the seat at the table.

The second core principle is “We can’t change the past; we can only change the future.” So, as eager as we may be to establish that our opponent is to blame for our predicament, doing so does not solve our joint problem. Indeed, insistence on assigning blame to the other, or declaring one’s own innocence, only serves as an obstacle to progress toward finding a workable solution. We must accept the other’s, and our own, past conduct – the good, the bad, and the ugly – as historical fact, as permanent records stored in our memory banks. We can’t un-ring a bell. We can’t un-say a past remark. We can’t un-do a past deed. We can only agree to prevent their recurrence.

The third core principle is that durable solutions require “voice and choice.” Whether a marriage of two, a work-team of ten, or a nation of millions, if we are to act in concert, in cooperation, and in peace, we must ensure that every person who will be affected by a decision must be given voice – that is, an opportunity to speak and be heard, whether face-to-face or in the voting booth. And, each person must feel that his or her voice has meaningful impact on the eventual outcome, on the decision being made, on the plan being written. It is human nature to say, “If I thought of it, then it must be a good idea.” “If I helped create it, then it must be a good thing.” By ensuring voice-and-choice for each party in the decision-making and problem-solving process, we foster a sense of personal ownership of that solution, and commitment to its implementation. If we fail to do so, we produce, at best, grudging compliance with the winner’s demands. At worst, we sow the seeds of defiant rebellion and sabotage. This principle of voice-and-choice applies to happy marriages and to peaceful societies, and to all forms of human relationships in-between, across the full spectrum. This is democracy, from the smallest to the largest scale of human affairs.

Effective mediation in all ongoing interdependent relationships employs all three core principles. Effective mediators know this truth in their bones.

In our few minutes together today, we have traversed a broad landscape. We began our journey by examining instincts buried deep in our nature that arose millions of years ago in our far pre-human ancestors. We then proceeded through the development of law and other rights-based alternatives to violence, beginning several thousand years ago when civilization as we know it today began to emerge from pre-history. Finally, we have arrived at this date, today, where we discover that we can use our MINDS – that is, our magnificent cerebral cortex – that most human of body parts – to harness our primitive impulses and to construct tools – that is, behavioral technology – that enable us to elevate ourselves above ancient instinctual reflexes so that we may live and work together in peace, harmony, and productivity.

I have no doubt that my fellow mediators here today, whether you are an attorney or a non-attorney, share my belief in the promise of mediation, however that word may be defined, for resolving disputes to mutual satisfaction. Our experience demonstrates its power to benefit our clients, ourselves, our communities, and broader society. Like me, you believe our way is preferable to rights-based adjudication of civil disputes, especially in family courts where the well-being of vulnerable children is often at stake. You may even agree with me that the essence of mediation can be distilled to its core simplicity and applied in our everyday lives. If you are a practitioner of mediation, I’m sure you share my sense of satisfaction in contributing to the betterment of society, to building a wall of peace, one brick at a time, one conversation at a time, as a defense against the assault that conflict relentlessly wages against our daily pursuit of happiness.

My purpose here today has not been to venture into the dense forest of mediation techniques or theories of mediation practice – you can find a rich and flourishing body of knowledge in the published literature about our field of endeavor. I simply hope that I have made a sensible case for the promise of mediation as a process for improving human relationships, especially those ongoing, interdependent relationships that lie at the core of our own, very personal, reasons for living.

I’ll leave you with one final reminder from Rumi:

Out beyond ideas of wrong-doing and right-doing there is a field. I will meet you there.

Asante sana

Thank you