After more
than 30 years of conflict, in the courts, the legislature and newspapers on
the management of a river designated as a wilderness waterway, the recently
elected state governor requested that the stakeholders come together to create
a plan for the river that they could all get behind.
A two day retreat
was designed and facilitated to forge consensus between 23 disparate groups.
They were able to craft an agreement by the end of the retreat that met both
the need to preserve the wilderness character of the river as well as recreational
access.
The
board of a non-profit that I sit on went through an unpleasant separation
from two of their longstanding board members. Three strong voices on the board
were in disagreement. One person felt it was essential that there be major
changes in the operations of the organization. The other two wanted to do
things like they'd always done them. The disagreement went on for months.
They never changed what they were saying or how they were saying it and they
wouldn't bring in assistance to deal with the problem. The running dispute
had a high cost in the board's effectiveness and everyone felt drained and
upset.
Eventually
there were requests for and threats of resignation. Two excellent members
were lost to an organization they cared about deeply, because they couldn't
find a way to talk about an important issue.
I can't describe
the details because the setting was confidential and it's not unique to a single
mediation. The experience of being in the same room with a conflict that shifts
to resolution is what inspires me in my mediation work. You start out with tension,
stony silence, or perhaps anger or even shouting. Gradually as each person has
a chance to say what's going on for him or her the feeling in the room starts
to change. It opens up, softens. I can feel my own body relax. There's noticable
relief in the room when people start to let down their guard and say things
you realize they've never been able to say before. When that happens, even when
we don't reach a clear resolution on a specific issue, you can see that the
channels of communication have opened.
There
is a member of our congregation who is always willing to help with different
church activities and sits on the board. The problem is that he always has
to have his way and ends up, quite often, alienating other members of the
congregation. The voices and ideas of others are lost. No one knows what to
say for fear of offending him. In the end this one person is shaping the tone
of activities and quite often the direction of the church by default.
I walked into
the office one day to find two of the staff members in a conflict that seemed
to be getting worse. I started asking them questions. Each one had an attitude.
Each one had decided that what the other person was doing had some meaning other
than the simple act that set them off. By listening carefully to them both and
then asking each of them in turn whether such and such meaning was true, they
discovered that the action was innocent of any underlying meaning. They also
learned more about what was important to each of them.
Stuck - Gary objected
to the way Brandy completed reports, and the way she socialized with co-workers
and clients. Even though she had been doing things her way for years, and
even though Gary was made aware of the power she had in the local community,
he was insistent on her following standard policy. He would not back off and
they ended up in a nasty confrontation. Gary's youth forced him to test his
power as "the boss".
Two years later both Gary and Brandy are gone. Brandy quit and went to work
for the competition. It now takes two people to do what Brandy accomplished,
and they can't do it as well.
I had been
separated for 5 years. I was now about to enter into a court ordered mediation
with my estranged husband. This was the last leg of a long journey to sever
marriage vows. For many years "George" was very angry and would only
address me with short, curt sentences or with aggression. I was grief stricken
to have lost my friend. And, we have a beautiful daughter that has joined us
forever; we needed to work things out.
During the first 45
minutes of the mediation session George spoke only to the mediator. He wouldn't
even look at me, which was nothing unusual given the past 3 years. Then all
of a sudden he turned to me and started to talk to me, really talk, in a nice
voice, making sense. I could feel my entire body shift and I knew right then
and there that we would be able to work through this. And we did. George and
I talk regularly and consider ourselves family.
Randy
finally received the promotion he was longing for. That was the good news.
The bad news was his inability to focus on his job. He was going through a
messy child custody battle with his ex-wife. That stirred up all of the anger
he was holding about their past relationship. She wanted to mediate the dispute,
but randy was set on winning. Unfortunately he lost - he lost his job. It
was a position that required all of his attention. He missed two important
deadlines because his mind was focused on the past.
For three years
an environmental organization and a power conglomerate duked it out in PR campaigns
over a power generating plant that didn't meet emissions standards. After three
years they and the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) were deadlocked.
About 2 months after I learned of this I got a notice saying that they had come
to an agreement...all parties cited it as win/win. I called to find out what
had changed.
Two things. The environmental
agency had done some footwork for the power station. And, they had an odd bit
of serendipity work in their favor. Because the conflict had moved into the
arena of the BEP, the DEP (The Department of Environmental Protection) had fallen
into the position of being an informal "neutral". They were able to
get the power company and the environmentalists to sit down in the same room
for the first time in three years. They acted as the neutral and the win/win
scenario emerged.
A business
came before the planning board to get a building permit for a dormitory for
a program that involved at-risk-youth. As is standard, a public hearing was
held. While the meeting proved more mild mannered than many such meetings
there was still no opportunity for people to dialogue. A dialogue would have
involved not just raising concerns, but working together to come up with a
strategy to address those concerns.
After
the meeting there were quite a few individuals who remained concerned about
the project and started writing letters to the board. The pressure caused
the business owners to scrap their plans and run their program out of an existing
building that would not require a permit process. The discussion was over.
Now they operate in the town with hard feelings on both sides that went completely
unaddressed. These at-risk-kids now come into a community of generalized hard
feelings with no forum for resolving them.
A group member
was struggling with a group that never seemed to move ahead. This was a group
that never argued; they were always polite. They had points of disagreement,
they just didn't verbalize them. Consequently they never worked through them
to decide on a course of action.
This group member
decided that she was going to be break the silence. She simply told them what
she was noticing - that the group was always polite, and they were not moving
forward. She asked them what they thought would happen if they agreed to be
little more forthright? It was a simple gesture, but it took courage to break
the cycle...and it worked. They were all relieved at the breath of fresh air.
And they began to move forward.
Stuck - Two colleagues
designed two innovative forms of management "technology." These
processes were significant additions to the knowledge base about personal
productivity and leadership. They battled for over a year about who owned
the intellectual property they had developed. The productivity loss from their
feud boggles the mind. Instead of many students and clients getting the value
of what they discovered, their time was devoted to fighting. The direct loss
was their loss in revenue. The opportunity lost was the value of any new innovations
that might have been developed in the time they had been in conflict.
A participant,
at one of my workshops described an argument with her mother. I know these women
to be thoughtful, articulate and caring people. And still their argument had
escalated to shouting. They had used every strategy they had to convince the
other of their views. Finally the daughter remembered the NonViolent Communication
model. She had not yet given it a test drive under the heat of conflict and
was not at all sure she could trust it. But she thought, "This is already
a total loss, it can't make anything worse."
She filled in the
blanks of the model: When you do ___, I feel ___, because I need ___ Would you
be willing to ___? Her mother stopped, tears filled her eyes, and she reached
for her daughter with an "Oh.....Yes, I can do that."
This
story shows up in a lot of mediations, even mediations that work out. People
come to mediation, they say they want to work things out, and then they put
most of their energy into attacking the other person instead of focusing on
what they want to have happen. I recently watched this happen with a disputant
who was on the verge of getting exactly what he wanted. This was not a relationship
that needed to be restored, it was simply closure on a dispute and so we finished
the mediation in caucuses to keep the person from undermining his own best
interest.
One of my favorite
success stories has been described as "pizza diplomacy." It involved
the two lead research projects for mapping the human genome. For years the project
leaders had been involved in a vicious and fully publicized feud over data exchange,
credit, accuracy and a variety of other issues around this major scientific
accomplishment. They were working at cross purposes when they could have been
moving the projects ahead for the common good through some means of collaboration.
A respected colleague
offered to bring them together on neutral ground. They agreed and met in his
home with pizza, beer and his ability as a neutral. They met several times over
the course of a couple of months and were able to iron out enough of what stood
between them to further this historic moment in science.
Stuck - A few years
ago I was called into a situation of two brothers who were business partners
in a third generation family business. They had reached impasse over the strategic
direction their business would take. They believed they had to engage in a
battle about placing a valuation on their business. Each hired a lawyer and
each lawyer retained a forensic accountant to place a value on the business.
By the time I was called they had stopped speaking to each other based on
their respective lawyer's advice. In just the preliminary stages of the "battle"
they had spent over $60,000 on professional fees and they were just at the
beginning.
Many years
ago I acted as the default facilitator to a conflict involving students at a
boarding school. They had drawn themselves into factions, with one side constantly
picking at the other. Tension was high. The school promoted community building
but didn't have any protocol or training in facing conflict. As a group we decided
to have an air-clearing meeting, to get whatever was stewing, off the burner
and on the table.
We set some groundrules
and started talking. We held a discussion for a while, but gradually the primary
players in the conflict took the floor. One was quiet, calm and accusing; the
other was steamed and clearly hurt. Finally there was a brief whirlwind of insults
and finger pointing. The rest of us sat, simply witnessing. And then it was
over. The accuser could see the hurt her views were fueling. The angry one could
see the accuser "get it" and that seemed to make it possible for him
to hear her concerns. They were hugging by the time it was over. It taught me
the value of simply creating a safe space and letting conflict emerge within
the support of caring community.
I was
invited in to talk with a project director about doing a communication skills
training for their staff. They said they had to do something because there
was so much tension within the group that nobody enjoyed coming to work anymore.
People constantly talked behind others backs and assumed the worst rather
than talk about it. And - it had been like that for over a year! The director
thought about quitting everyday. After careful consideration they determined
they didn't have the time or budget for a training.
- A woman in
a workshop was struggling to determine what needs her teenage son had that she
was not recognizing. Life had become the typical parent/teen struggle and she
was at a loss for what to do. A week later I asked her how things had gone.
She said there had been a wonderful change. She and her son were communicating
and enjoying their company again.
I asked if she had
been able to come up with a good guess as to what her and her son's needs were.
She said, "Oh, no, I gave up trying; I just spoke from my heart."
She had learned the most important part of communicating well - it's not doing
the model "just so"- it's opening your heart that opens doors with
people.
I had
a staff member describe to me a conflict she had had with a co-worker. The
conflict didn't seem to be particularly important and she staunchly refused
to say anything because she didn't know what to say and didn't think this
person would listen anyway. She was going to "drop it". But that
wasn't what was happening - she said she hadn't slept for the previous 3 nights
rehashing it in her mind. A lot of energy was being lost to what seemed a
pretty small, resolvable matter.
Back to top
|