Holiday Conflict Resolution

Ah, the holidays. Times where families get together after not seeing each other for months, perhaps. Food. Football. Conflict.

Yep, lots of conflict happens during this most wonderful time of year. Here's a great story from phillyburbs.com about "Holiday conflict resolution." It's worth a read. The story is based upon a post from PhillyHealthInfor.org.

The articles list nine ways to resolve family conflicts. They are:

1. Respect everyone's ideas and needs.
2. Focus on the problem not the person.
3. Build power with, not over others.
4. Express feelings without blaming others (use “I” messages).
5. Own your part of the conflict.
6. Strategize to reach mutually agreeable solutions.
7. Create options ... having only one way always creates losers.
8. Listen so people will talk and talk so people will listen.
9. Solve the problem and build the relationship.

What do you think about this list? How would you use these principles in resolving conflict during this season?

Lights! Cameras! Mediation?

From the "never thought I'd see this" category.

There's going to be a television show about mediators.

The Hollywood Reporter is reporting that the USA Network has agreed to a pilot called "Facing Kate." It's the story of a divorced attorney who leaves her job to be a mediator.

If this gets off the ground, we all need to spruce up our offices and be prepared for the expectation of glamor.

What do attorneys want?

As part of my role as Communications person for the ADR section of the Dallas Bar Association, I have the privilege of attending monthly section meetings. Yesterday's meeting was fabulous.

Three very prominent attorneys and one former judge were on a panel discussing everything from the value of a joint session, ethical considerations, and mediation tips. I came away with a page full of notes.

Most importantly, to me, was the unanimous viewpoint by all three experienced attorneys that they want a mediator who will evaluate the case and be advocates for settlement. "Evaluate the case and the party's position", "hold people accountable", "help clients understand risks" were phrases that were used.

I know some mediators who agree with this position. I know others who believe the evaluative model is flawed because it takes the mediator out of a truly neutral position. What do you think? Should we do what our "customers" want and desire?

Happy Conflict Resolution Day

To all: Happy Conflict Resolution Day!

Please take a moment to reflect upon, and promote, the use of resolving conflicts in the legal system, businesses, schools, families, and communities.

Words from George Mitchell

George Mitchell is the current Special Envoy for Middle East Peace. Very recently, he briefed reporters about the trilateral meeting President Obama had with Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel and President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. The transcript of Mr. Mitchell's briefing can be found here.

Mr. Mitchell made some interesting comments about conflict resolution--regardless of one's view of the situation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority--and I'd like your comments.

The tone was positive and determined. The President made clear his commitment to moving forward, and the leaders shared that commitment.

Q: What is the importance of having initial commitments to the success of resolving conflict? How do you achieve these initial commitments?

The President told them that we cannot restart talks from scratch. That said, neither side should hold out for the perfect formula. Painful compromise by all will be necessary. This was a message that the President conveyed to each of the leaders in private as well.

Q: What are the advantages of reminding parties where they have been? And the advantages or disadvantages of taking a firm position, such as talks cannot be restarted from scratch? How do you deliver the message that "painful compromise" may be necessary to resolve a dispute?

So yes, we haven’t gotten everything we wanted, we haven’t gotten it as fast as we want it. But in conflict resolution, if one adopts the standard that one must always get 100 percent of what one seeks at every stage of the process, otherwise you’re failure, well, then of course, there would never ever be a resolution of any conflict. Painful compromises are necessary for everybody. So we are determined to proceed. We will not be deterred by – I don’t want to say accusations, but criticisms, by descriptions of failure. We believe that we are doing the right thing. We believe we have made substantial progress and we intend to continue with full determination until there is comprehensive peace in the region.

Q: Often during negotiations, one of the parties will say "we're not making any progress, we're out of here." How do you keep parties at the table during times when seemingly no progress is being made? How do you educate parties to a negotiation that resolving conflict is process, often times not a quick one?

Conflict Resolution Day Approaches

October 15 is Conflict Resolution Day, sponsored by an organization that I belong to and respect, the Association for Conflict Resolution. As Conflict Resolution Day approaches, a number of local ACR Chapters begin publicizing the day as well as local governmental units and agencies.

Here's the first article that I've come across, it's from the Maryland Gazette, announcing that Maryland's Judiciary's Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office is sponsoring a Conflict Resolution Day Student Bookmark Art Contest.

Congratulations to the Maryland Judiciary's Mediation and Conflict Resolution Office in kicking off Conflict Resolution Day, and what a great way to start--by inviting children to think about resolving their conflicts peaceably.

We'll keep posting on Conflict Resolution Day activities as they become available.

Health care

Like most folks, I'm interested in the debate on health care that is going on in this country. Being the good neutral, I'm not going to let you know my preferences.

But I got to thinking this morning on the way back from the courthouse: how would I mediate the health care debate?

The health care debate has all of the issues relating to a really sophisticated piece of complex litigation: opinions on all sides from authorities in the field and interesting legal issues (the Wall Street Journal has run pieces discussing the constitutionality--rather, unconstitutionality of the federal government regulating or requiring health care--see WSJ stories here and here and related stories here and here).

If you were appointed to mediate the health care debate, how would you approach the mediation? How would you try to get the parties to "settle" the issue? How would you set up the mediation? How would you help the parties frame the issues?

I'm interested in your thoughts.