Beware the Dark Side? - ADRhub - Creighton NCR2024-03-28T19:05:28Zhttp://www.adrhub.com/forum/topics/beware-the-dark-side?feed=yes&xn_auth=noHello all,
I now recognize th…tag:www.adrhub.com,2013-11-07:4905899:Comment:552962013-11-07T16:17:50.383ZJillian Posthttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/JillianPost
<p>Hello all,</p>
<p>I now recognize the idealism (for lack of a better term) in my post from earlier in this conversation ... which I just reread, I still believe that the best mediation is a process that goes deep, but only if that is what the parties want. If at any time we lay down our own blueprint for the process and insist on it... claiming "they will feel so much better" we run the risk of doing harm not good. Party self-determination is what makes this process liberating ... and if…</p>
<p>Hello all,</p>
<p>I now recognize the idealism (for lack of a better term) in my post from earlier in this conversation ... which I just reread, I still believe that the best mediation is a process that goes deep, but only if that is what the parties want. If at any time we lay down our own blueprint for the process and insist on it... claiming "they will feel so much better" we run the risk of doing harm not good. Party self-determination is what makes this process liberating ... and if that means not exposing one's jugular for other parties to pounce on, or if the fear of such is respected first and foremost, without regard for our (the mediator's) own purposes then we have accomplished a large goal. </p>
<p>I do still believe that we stray away from examining the dark side of emotions but that is an entirely different entry point. </p>
<p>JIllian</p> Adam - these are all very goo…tag:www.adrhub.com,2013-11-07:4905899:Comment:553282013-11-07T06:45:26.724ZNoam Ebnerhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/NoamEbner
<p>Adam - these are all very good points, which I agree with in and try to implement in terms of my own practice.</p>
<p>There are many authors and practitioners (more of the latter than the former) who don't think that the stress we put on this side of conflict is important, necessary or even any of our business. The last element of this critique is important to keep in mind: When we are not invited in to the emotional side of a conflict, how deeply should we probe, and when should we zip it…</p>
<p>Adam - these are all very good points, which I agree with in and try to implement in terms of my own practice.</p>
<p>There are many authors and practitioners (more of the latter than the former) who don't think that the stress we put on this side of conflict is important, necessary or even any of our business. The last element of this critique is important to keep in mind: When we are not invited in to the emotional side of a conflict, how deeply should we probe, and when should we zip it and keep it to ourselves? This question is particularly important with regards to "dark side" emotions, which parties rarely want to discuss.</p>
<p>Thanks for keeping this conversation alive! I think it is a topic that the field needs to engage with often, in an ongoing manner. I know my own treatment of these issues has changed over the years, I wonder what a measurement of "the field", whatever that is, would look like over time.</p> Noam,
I really enjoyed this p…tag:www.adrhub.com,2013-11-06:4905899:Comment:553112013-11-06T21:01:14.426ZAdam Weston Harperhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/AdamWestonHarper
<p>Noam,</p>
<p>I really enjoyed this post and exploration into something that might be missing in mediation. In my limited familiarity with mediation, I have felt that when re-framing occurs, sometimes real "dark" emotions are subverted, misplaced, or misinterpreted. If the ultimate goal is to mediate an agreement between the two parties in which they feel like the terms are equitable and fair, then perhaps we have done our part. However, if we have failed as mediators to address these…</p>
<p>Noam,</p>
<p>I really enjoyed this post and exploration into something that might be missing in mediation. In my limited familiarity with mediation, I have felt that when re-framing occurs, sometimes real "dark" emotions are subverted, misplaced, or misinterpreted. If the ultimate goal is to mediate an agreement between the two parties in which they feel like the terms are equitable and fair, then perhaps we have done our part. However, if we have failed as mediators to address these underlying "dark" emotions-namely: jealousy, rage, vengeance, and spite-then perhaps we have not truly mediated the situation between the two participants.</p>
<p>If these emotions are getting overlooked, ignored, or subverted then may the "issue" between the two parties continue to go unresolved? The dispute between the two participants may for a day appear to be resolved, but will the ignorance of these "dark" emotions manifest itself in the dissolution of the agreement at a later time?</p>
<p>I believe the answer to all these questions are yes and require those mediating a disagreement to explore these emotions no matter how unpleasant or uncomfortable the environment may become.</p>
<p>Also, I believe when someone is talking and it becomes clear that emotions of jealousy and rage are manifested by a party, it would seem axiomatic to deal with these issues in a constructive way that truly settles these emotions, not by sublimation, but rather through exploration. I don't know about you, but I don't feel like an issue has been resolved if I have simply been ignored or not listened to. If these type of emotions are not dealt with, then it seems to me that the solution can never be anything more than a metaphorical band-aid, residing upon the surface of the skin, but never going deeper. It is a superficial fix that requires a more nuanced and deeper solution.</p>
<p>I feel with more thoughtful consideration of these emotions and a more developed understanding that these emotions are, in some small part, a portion of the human experience, then will participants involved in mediation feel like they are being heard, fell like their "issues" are being resolved, and both participants will truly reach an agreement that lasts and rewards both parties for the experience. </p>
<p> </p> Emotions from the dark side.…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-23:4905899:Comment:403812012-07-23T19:53:39.175ZAndre Jacksonhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/AndreJackson
<p>Emotions from the dark side. How very interesting. An aspect that I don't think was mentioned yet is the cultural (and other) background of the person experiencing and/or displaying emotions. Every now and then I notice surprised reactions from my American friends when I vent in a way and about emotions that seem perfectly fine to me (but not to them). I have the impression that maybe culturally I live closer to the dark side.. Ha! I often even hear comments how the German language sounds so…</p>
<p>Emotions from the dark side. How very interesting. An aspect that I don't think was mentioned yet is the cultural (and other) background of the person experiencing and/or displaying emotions. Every now and then I notice surprised reactions from my American friends when I vent in a way and about emotions that seem perfectly fine to me (but not to them). I have the impression that maybe culturally I live closer to the dark side.. Ha! I often even hear comments how the German language sounds so "angry"...</p>
<p>But as regards "dealing" with intense negative emotions that's just a tough call. The other day I read how our brains are wired to respond empathetically stronger to negative emotions than to positive ones and how this can so easily result in people bringing each other down, and how there is a risk that venting can stimulate negative thinking and feeling. I notice that with me. Some situations in my past just make me really angry. Sometimes I choose to not continue talking - or even thinking - about something because I know it will be bad news.</p>
<p>So I think those dark side feelings need to be very carefully handled. We often don't know another person well enough to know if and how far we could/should go exploring their emotions. What if we explore something that the disputant or we cannot understand or handle? I think something must be said for norms that might have come about exactly for that reason: to protect from letting go too much. I don't think it's healthy to hold meaningful emotional responses back (Peter A. Levine, the author of "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma - The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences" finds that such not-processing can result in trauma), but maybe when things are getting too dark we need an expert and should defer further exploring to a therapist or a psychologist?</p> One of the points that we uph…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-20:4905899:Comment:404732012-07-20T04:03:01.689ZJohn C. Turleyhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/JohnCTurley
One of the points that we uphold while mediating for the State of Michigan is an atmosphere of proper business decorum. The Dispute Resolution Centers(DRC) are extensions of the courts. We are empathetic mediators;however, when the Dark Side gets out of control, we call for order in the sessions. At the DRCs, there are no metal detectors, police or court officers as there are at the courts.<br />
I saw a defendant vault herself across the conference room table to attack the plaintiff when their…
One of the points that we uphold while mediating for the State of Michigan is an atmosphere of proper business decorum. The Dispute Resolution Centers(DRC) are extensions of the courts. We are empathetic mediators;however, when the Dark Side gets out of control, we call for order in the sessions. At the DRCs, there are no metal detectors, police or court officers as there are at the courts.<br />
I saw a defendant vault herself across the conference room table to attack the plaintiff when their discussions got too heated. In this tense situation, the anxious staff heard the raised voices and eldritch screams down the hall. This is definitely a real world situation for which I was trained to handle thanks more to my street smarts education in Brooklyn, NY than my formal one.<br />
<br />
Working on the Dark Side requires boundaries to observe. It is akin to a tale from Greek mythology where the hero embarks on a journey, enters a different world, and arms himself with talismans and the protection of the gods to ward off the power of the Dark Side. The Dark Side demons that I encountered on that particular day in Detroit were formidable. I am far from being a hero but my tale somewhat reflects the ideas of Joseph Campbell. It sounds like this is an exaggeration;however,this was real life at its finest.<br />
<br />
JCT Well isn't this just the cool…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-19:4905899:Comment:405582012-07-19T01:38:30.177ZJillian Posthttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/JillianPost
<p>Well isn't this just the coolest little discussion ya'll have going on here. I have a thought or two on the subject of "Dark Side" emotions. I think they scare the heck out of most people. Of course there are cultural dimensions to consider, but speaking as an emotionally thwarted Mid-western American (of German decent).... yeah, I know, that statement is loaded with stereotypes...... I know that they scare the heck out of me. Why? Specifically?</p>
<p>Because they are hardly ever considered…</p>
<p>Well isn't this just the coolest little discussion ya'll have going on here. I have a thought or two on the subject of "Dark Side" emotions. I think they scare the heck out of most people. Of course there are cultural dimensions to consider, but speaking as an emotionally thwarted Mid-western American (of German decent).... yeah, I know, that statement is loaded with stereotypes...... I know that they scare the heck out of me. Why? Specifically?</p>
<p>Because they are hardly ever considered appropriate in the grand scheme of things. What I mean by that is, in the workplace, in our families, in our relationships...... a raise of the voice, a furrow of the brow, a rant or rage is a sign that things are getting out of control in a hurry. Like greasy meat on the grill, we close the cover to put the fire out. We don't consider burned meat to be tasty, likewise we don't consider burned conversations to be productive. We have been acculturated to think this is the norm. But that doesn't change the fact that they are very real and can actually be productive.</p>
<p>So..... what can Conflict Specialists learn during training to get skilled in allowing or encouraging disputants to feel safe in expressing these dark emotions, or emotions that come from anger, as Noam reported from Cape Town. (Btw....The press released photo of Leymah Gbowee and her co-recipients last year is proudly displayed on my Facebook wall. Made me tear up to think of their bravery.)</p>
<p>Anyway.....</p>
<p>What if we had very specific, work-shop type situations where these emotions were allowed? From the field of psychology.... a kind of flooding type experience. If we survived the workshop, no worse for the wear, would we then be not so afraid? Would we deem them less negative? My point in all this is, really, most people are just so unfamiliar with how to deal with that kind of emotion in a constructive manner. </p>
<p>This is one criticism I have of a regular academic environment. It can come off as "canned". I know it is not meant to be the end of our education, but instead the basics. But this subject needs closer attention in the program. Perhaps just more awareness that it exists.... a head's up, I guess. </p>
<p>I seek authenticity in my life like I thirst for water. I can't seem to get enough of it (especially this summer.) Authenticity includes negative emotions, does it not? I want my classmates to raise it in their posts. I want my instructors to allow it and encourage dissent. It depends on the instructor, but I have to tell you, I haven't gotten the good grades I have gotten by dissenting. Of course I have gotten them by writing intelligently.... but about the proper stuff. I feel a little guilty. I want to dissent more. After all, I am in a program about conflict!!!! </p>
<p>Any thoughts on all this?? Anybody?</p>
<p></p>
<p>Jillian</p> I have really enjoyed the co…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-18:4905899:Comment:405572012-07-18T13:25:41.064ZBernie Mayerhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/BernieMayer234
<p></p>
<p>I have really enjoyed the comments in this discussion. Three issues here seem to be percolating throughout:</p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li>Courage</li>
<li>Responsibility</li>
<li>Purpose</li>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<p>A brief take on each:</p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li>Courage. I sometimes think it is less important whether we actually hit the nail on the head in what we do or whether we bring up the most important emotion or issue or dilemma than whether we demonstrate the courage to go where the…</li>
</ol>
<p></p>
<p>I have really enjoyed the comments in this discussion. Three issues here seem to be percolating throughout:</p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li>Courage</li>
<li>Responsibility</li>
<li>Purpose</li>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<p>A brief take on each:</p>
<p> </p>
<ol>
<li>Courage. I sometimes think it is less important whether we actually hit the nail on the head in what we do or whether we bring up the most important emotion or issue or dilemma than whether we demonstrate the courage to go where the situation requires us to go. For example, if race is an issue, and we show that we are willing to talk about race and racism, something which Americans at least have a long history of avoiding, that may be more important than if we articulate it exactly correctly or find the right framing. If we convey a willingness to talk about issues or feelings that are really hard, unpleasant, or scary—such as jealousy, hate, depression, suicidal thoughts, violence, abuse, or greed—even if that willingness does not result in an extended or meaningful conversation, then we have done something important. We have demonstrated that the existence of these feelings or fears is not a cause for alarm or shame, but a normal part of the human condition, and one that can be dealt with. So the starting place for a lot of this is to have the courage to go where we need to go and this requires that we ask ourselves, what are we really afraid of as we think about raising these feelings or delving into these areas. Of course part of it may be a fear of opening a can of worms, or igniting a fire we won’t be able to put out, or violating the implicit agreement that we are operating under. Those are to my way of thinking valid reasons for being careful about this. But I think often the more powerful inhibitor for us is our own fear of having to experience some of this energy, the anxiety it causes for us, our own need to stay in control and to avoid conflict. It is our own dark side we are afraid of. That is something that mediators (and counselors, coaches, negotiators, etc.) really need to work on and get in touch with. We are not helping people if we avoid going into these most difficult areas because of our own fear. I think for most of us this is a life long challenge.</li>
<li>Responsibility. Who is responsible for deciding what to deal with, what to discuss, at what level of depth to work, etc., the clients or the mediator? As with so much that we do, the answer here is yes. That is we all are responsible. As a client in a mediation, we are as responsible for our own experience as is the mediator. In any of these roles, we have to try to act wisely, in accordance with our values, and of course courageously. As mediators, we are committed to empowerment but also confidentiality, maintaining a safe environment, etc. So to return to a theme from my previous post, this requires that we enter into a negotiation of sorts with our clients about what will transpire in mediation—one in which their needs and concerns are critical, but also one in which our interests are also very important. If one party has the need to unleash all their anger on another—perhaps in an abusive way-- we have an interest in limiting this or even preventing it. And if both parties want to spend all the available time telling each other just how awful the other is, we still have an interest in putting limits around this. On the other hand, if the parties are avoiding the real issue and want to avoid the genuine concerns they have that are underlying their ability to work on the issues they are struggling with, we may have an interest in encouraging them to engage at a deeper more difficult level or at least in naming the problem (see number one above). As in all good negotiations, the essential needs and concerns of all parties have to be addressed to some extent if the interaction is going to be successful and as in all negotiations, we have to be aware that sometimes the best alternative is not to continue the negotiation. Mediators need to be good negotiations—that is how we exercise our responsibility and maintain our commitment to client empowerment and autonomy at the same time.</li>
<li>Purpose: As with so much of what we do, how we approach these issues ultimately comes back to our purpose. Why are we entering into this interaction? Are our purposes and our clients purposes at least compatible if not the same or similar? Can we change our purpose mid-stream (say from working out agreements to healing) as we reassess what is going on? And if it is our job to bring up the most important underlying issues or the dark side emotions—why—to what end? Our purpose is not a rigid, mechanistic determinant of all that we do, but it is a driving force that frames our thinking, our ethics, our training, our technique and our marketing. I continue to use the general idea that “ I am here to help you have the conversation that you need to have”—but of course the next questions is what does “need to have” really mean. Understanding, owning, and refining our sense of purpose is an ongoing challenge, sometimes frustrating but a source of great creativity, reflection, and growth.</li>
</ol>
<p> </p>
<p>In three hours I am off to the UK where I will attend the Olympics and where I expect to see lots of emotions both motivating and inhibiting athletes. Many of us may have seen Andy Murray give us a lesson in emotion after he lost the Wimbledon finals—controlled emotionally throughout the match, then very openly emotional—and very moving in his discussion at the end in which he said something to the effect that “you can’t be really good at this sport if you are not emotional.” There is something to learn from this.</p>
<p><br/> <cite>Noam Ebner said:</cite></p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.adrhub.com/forum/topics/beware-the-dark-side#4905899Comment40367"><div><div class="xg_user_generated"><p>What a fascinating discussion. I think one thing that stands out very clearly as a theme is the recurring questions of 'What do Parties Want?' vs. 'What do mediators see as their role'?</p>
<p>Bernie, you've been dealing with this for a long time in your writing. In another aspect, it is also a question that underlies some of the transformative / problem solving debate, at its core. You also ask how can we know if parties want descriptive ventilation or validation - and what do we do with that? John tosses in another, very practical issue - we can listen, reflect and validate all day long; how does that connect with our fee structure? Might a discussion on the nature of 'bounded rationality' at the very beginning of a process help parties figure out this balance for themselves, as Hal suggests, and perhaps relieve us of some of the responsibility for leading the conversation one way or another that Delores and really all of us are grappling with?</p>
<p>Boy, I wish I knew. Getting more solidly back to coping with these emotions when they are present in the room, I do have one strong intuition: When clearly identifying a Dark Side emotion consistently underlying phase after phase of a conversation, we need to consider discussing it with the party, or with the parties. This is a decision worthy of real thought, perhaps a break, perhaps a caucus with a co-mediator.</p>
<p>This is a freighted situation: On the one hand, even in caucus, touching on the emotion that has not been raised might be seen as pushy, trustbreaking, even an act of 'outing'. We face rejection of a fairly firmly held understanding about what is driving the in-room dynamics, if not the conflict itself, which is a threat to our own self-security in the room. We also face a powerful reaction from the party from 'shut up!' to a walk-out. On the other hand, we might acheive a significant turning point in the discussion. The unnameable has been named, and we survived. The secret has been shared, and the party hasn't died, or been called to task, or punished.</p>
<p>How do we know which of these is going to happen? How do we know which forum, which tone, which words, are the right ones? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that because I certainly don't have any one good answer.</p>
<p>Bernie, I think your illustrating of your points with a story was very helpful, and I hope others add their stories in as well. Anecdotes don't make for good science, but I think we're at a very exploratory stage here where just figuring out the questions is helpful.</p>
<p>To kick off with one of my own, I remember a case where I stumbled on the Dark Side emotion sideways. It was in a divorce case, where the wife had met someone else and fallen in love, and the marriage collapsed. The husband was at times angry, snippy, vindictive and morose. He was also very consistent in making sniping coments regarding his wife's new partner. This was all playing out in a way that was wearing down both of their energies - and seem to get worse whenever we tried to get practical around a certain point.</p>
<p>In a caucus, I engaged him in a discussion but he didn't name any particular emotion - he was just 'angry at the whole story' was how he put it. When I went out on a limb and said "Look, this obviously isn't a pleasant situation, but you're not the first jealous husband to wake up and find himself cheated on - let's talk about how that feels' - he perked up and opened up. Not because I hit the nail on the head, but because (I think) I was close enough in an associative way and showed him I wasn't scared of dealing with it. He wasn't jealous at all in the 'jealous husband' sense. He'd come to terms with the fact that his wife had stepped out on him, he wasn't feeling the urge to chase after the new guy with a hammer. He was simply, but overwhelmingly, jealous in a much simpler and familiar way - sitting in the mediation room discussing money, children, etc. brought him to contrast her upcoming new life - a rush of love, an exciting new partnership, doing ok financially, having the kids, etc. - with the way he saw his own: A lackluster, lonely existence in which he ate microwaved hotdogs in a one bedroom apartment every night as he contemplated his financial ruin and his sorry excuse for parenthood. And this comparison, he said, made him feel jealous like a kid, watching his brother play with all his new birthday gifts and then getting sent to his room for trying to grab one and play with it himself. When he was in the mediation room, this jealousy kept overwhelming his rational side, his sense of being a decent person who could work things out, his concern for his kids, and so on.</p>
<p>We spoke about jealousy for a while. I noted how quick we were to identify it in kids, and how we always try to quickly educate them out of it. He laughed, and said that he was always doing that with his kids, and really enjoyed the moment of self-irony. </p>
<p>This wasn't a magical A-ha! transformation moment after which (as those stories goes) the parties returned to the room and signed an agreement eight seconds later. But it was the key to changing this dynamic. I asked him if he'd like to let this dynamic continue, and when he said he did not, I asked if there was any way I might be able to help him. We discussed certain ways in which I might help him out in the conversation - breaks, reframing and suchlike - and continued the mediation in joint session. I did not need to use the methods we had discussed very often. I think that just having the conversation made him very cognizant of this motivation and he was determined to overcome it; the conversation helped him to decide to re-center himself.</p>
<p>Just a story, of course. Bet there are some other good ones out there...</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote> What a fascinating discussion…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-18:4905899:Comment:403672012-07-18T08:37:12.007ZNoam Ebnerhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/NoamEbner
<p>What a fascinating discussion. I think one thing that stands out very clearly as a theme is the recurring questions of 'What do Parties Want?' vs. 'What do mediators see as their role'?</p>
<p>Bernie, you've been dealing with this for a long time in your writing. In another aspect, it is also a question that underlies some of the transformative / problem solving debate, at its core. You also ask how can we know if parties want descriptive ventilation or validation - and what do we do with…</p>
<p>What a fascinating discussion. I think one thing that stands out very clearly as a theme is the recurring questions of 'What do Parties Want?' vs. 'What do mediators see as their role'?</p>
<p>Bernie, you've been dealing with this for a long time in your writing. In another aspect, it is also a question that underlies some of the transformative / problem solving debate, at its core. You also ask how can we know if parties want descriptive ventilation or validation - and what do we do with that? John tosses in another, very practical issue - we can listen, reflect and validate all day long; how does that connect with our fee structure? Might a discussion on the nature of 'bounded rationality' at the very beginning of a process help parties figure out this balance for themselves, as Hal suggests, and perhaps relieve us of some of the responsibility for leading the conversation one way or another that Delores and really all of us are grappling with?</p>
<p>Boy, I wish I knew. Getting more solidly back to coping with these emotions when they are present in the room, I do have one strong intuition: When clearly identifying a Dark Side emotion consistently underlying phase after phase of a conversation, we need to consider discussing it with the party, or with the parties. This is a decision worthy of real thought, perhaps a break, perhaps a caucus with a co-mediator.</p>
<p>This is a freighted situation: On the one hand, even in caucus, touching on the emotion that has not been raised might be seen as pushy, trustbreaking, even an act of 'outing'. We face rejection of a fairly firmly held understanding about what is driving the in-room dynamics, if not the conflict itself, which is a threat to our own self-security in the room. We also face a powerful reaction from the party from 'shut up!' to a walk-out. On the other hand, we might acheive a significant turning point in the discussion. The unnameable has been named, and we survived. The secret has been shared, and the party hasn't died, or been called to task, or punished.</p>
<p>How do we know which of these is going to happen? How do we know which forum, which tone, which words, are the right ones? I'd love to hear people's thoughts on that because I certainly don't have any one good answer.</p>
<p>Bernie, I think your illustrating of your points with a story was very helpful, and I hope others add their stories in as well. Anecdotes don't make for good science, but I think we're at a very exploratory stage here where just figuring out the questions is helpful.</p>
<p>To kick off with one of my own, I remember a case where I stumbled on the Dark Side emotion sideways. It was in a divorce case, where the wife had met someone else and fallen in love, and the marriage collapsed. The husband was at times angry, snippy, vindictive and morose. He was also very consistent in making sniping coments regarding his wife's new partner. This was all playing out in a way that was wearing down both of their energies - and seem to get worse whenever we tried to get practical around a certain point.</p>
<p>In a caucus, I engaged him in a discussion but he didn't name any particular emotion - he was just 'angry at the whole story' was how he put it. When I went out on a limb and said "Look, this obviously isn't a pleasant situation, but you're not the first jealous husband to wake up and find himself cheated on - let's talk about how that feels' - he perked up and opened up. Not because I hit the nail on the head, but because (I think) I was close enough in an associative way and showed him I wasn't scared of dealing with it. He wasn't jealous at all in the 'jealous husband' sense. He'd come to terms with the fact that his wife had stepped out on him, he wasn't feeling the urge to chase after the new guy with a hammer. He was simply, but overwhelmingly, jealous in a much simpler and familiar way - sitting in the mediation room discussing money, children, etc. brought him to contrast her upcoming new life - a rush of love, an exciting new partnership, doing ok financially, having the kids, etc. - with the way he saw his own: A lackluster, lonely existence in which he ate microwaved hotdogs in a one bedroom apartment every night as he contemplated his financial ruin and his sorry excuse for parenthood. And this comparison, he said, made him feel jealous like a kid, watching his brother play with all his new birthday gifts and then getting sent to his room for trying to grab one and play with it himself. When he was in the mediation room, this jealousy kept overwhelming his rational side, his sense of being a decent person who could work things out, his concern for his kids, and so on.</p>
<p>We spoke about jealousy for a while. I noted how quick we were to identify it in kids, and how we always try to quickly educate them out of it. He laughed, and said that he was always doing that with his kids, and really enjoyed the moment of self-irony. </p>
<p>This wasn't a magical A-ha! transformation moment after which (as those stories goes) the parties returned to the room and signed an agreement eight seconds later. But it was the key to changing this dynamic. I asked him if he'd like to let this dynamic continue, and when he said he did not, I asked if there was any way I might be able to help him. We discussed certain ways in which I might help him out in the conversation - breaks, reframing and suchlike - and continued the mediation in joint session. I did not need to use the methods we had discussed very often. I think that just having the conversation made him very cognizant of this motivation and he was determined to overcome it; the conversation helped him to decide to re-center himself.</p>
<p>Just a story, of course. Bet there are some other good ones out there...</p> Delores:
Thank you for sendin…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-16:4905899:Comment:406442012-07-16T20:06:05.396ZJohn C. Turleyhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/JohnCTurley
<p>Delores:</p>
<p>Thank you for sending me your article. I am responsible to myself as a trusted mediator, the State of Michigan, DRCs, the disputants, my supervisors, colleagues, and the courts. I further believe that I must demonstrate leadership throughout the mediation session(s). Leadership incorporates the principles of responsibility and sets one apart by sharing power with others. A good leader passes the baton to other team members so that they come to the forefront to lead based…</p>
<p>Delores:</p>
<p>Thank you for sending me your article. I am responsible to myself as a trusted mediator, the State of Michigan, DRCs, the disputants, my supervisors, colleagues, and the courts. I further believe that I must demonstrate leadership throughout the mediation session(s). Leadership incorporates the principles of responsibility and sets one apart by sharing power with others. A good leader passes the baton to other team members so that they come to the forefront to lead based on their abilities and talents.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In certain situations, I willing cede the floor to the disputants and/or their attorneys; however, I adhere to the mediation process. I allow the process to guide me and to re enforce the principles of responsibility. I assess whether or not the disputants and their lawyers are acting responsibly. I appreciate your position. Thanks for sending it my way.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>JCT</p> I am enjoying you conversatio…tag:www.adrhub.com,2012-07-16:4905899:Comment:404542012-07-16T19:25:23.061ZDelores Manwarhttp://www.adrhub.com/profile/DeloresManwar
<p>I am enjoying you conversation, I would like to share with you this article I wrote, it may be germane and then again maybe not.</p>
<p align="center"><b>Responsibility</b></p>
<p>By Delores Manwar</p>
<p><b>Moral obligation, Conscience, liability, Integrity; all equal, RESPONSIBILITY.</b></p>
<p><b>Webster defines responsibility as” being responsible”, obligation, obliged to account for duty; cause of something; able to distinguish between right & wrong; dependable, reliable,…</b></p>
<p>I am enjoying you conversation, I would like to share with you this article I wrote, it may be germane and then again maybe not.</p>
<p align="center"><b>Responsibility</b></p>
<p>By Delores Manwar</p>
<p><b>Moral obligation, Conscience, liability, Integrity; all equal, RESPONSIBILITY.</b></p>
<p><b>Webster defines responsibility as” being responsible”, obligation, obliged to account for duty; cause of something; able to distinguish between right & wrong; dependable, reliable, accountable, answerable, liable, constrained, tied, fettered, bonded, obliged, other side, trusty, capable, efficient, loyal, faithful (self reliant), able, competent, qualified, effective, upright, firm, steadfast, steady , able, respect, action required by one’s position, moral or legal consideration; service.</b></p>
<p><b>Great words, but in the world of Alternative Dispute Resolution, the idea of the participants assuming any responsibility is something that becomes hard if not impossible to accept. In some cases you can’t give the honor away. Instead we become irresponsible, which means at a drop of a hat we become capricious, erratic, flighty, fickle, thoughtless, rash, undependable, unstable, loose, and lax and with some of us even immoral; wild, shiftless devil make care, and unpredictable.</b></p>
<p><b>What would happen if we all decided that no matter what, we would make a concerted effort to examine our own definition of responsibility in our relationships, disputes, disagreements and conflict before we lash out and finger point at others?</b></p>
<p><b>In my opinion the absence of our ability to admit that we have some responsibility in almost everything that involves us, can be considered a direct cause of most of our conflict. Whether the breakdown in communication involves a divorce, contractual disagreements or other family & business relationships; let us stop and examine the part we played in the outcome or results. What should or could we have done or should not have done and can we be honest enough to admit that we may be guilty of being manipulative, dishonest, power hungry, greedy and self serving? All of the things we don’t or won’t readily admit we are.</b></p>