Control

Control of the Process
In basic mediation training we are all taught that we are in “control” of the process of the mediation… not the outcome. So, what does being in control of the process mean? Does it mean that you exert yourself at all costs? Do you set ground rules? Do you ever give over the “control” to maintain control?

I remember a case I mediated in which I had a very energetic party. It was a young Guardian ad Litem (GAL) in the case and he was fairly new in this role. The case was complex and the level of conflict was high so this GAL has a lot of energy wrapped up in the case.
The case involved a young child who had been abused physically and the parties were trying to determine the custody and visitation arrangements between the mother and the father. The abuse had been perpetrated by mother’s ex-boyfriend who was now being charged with criminal child abuse. So, neither of the parents directly caused the abuse, but the state child protection workers wanted both of the parents to take some responsibility in the form of failure to care charges.

The GAL was very animated and involved in the discussions regarding the care of the child. In order for me to suppress his energy and involvement in the mediation would have taken a lot of interventions and in doing so, I would have had to shut down many things that were happening in the mediation. It also happens that when he came into the room, I asked him to sit at the end of the table; instead, he pulled in right in-between the parents and their attorneys. This put him in direct line with those having the conversations.

So, he was put in the middle due to the seating arrangement as well as in regard to his role as the GAL. So, what did I do? I went with the flow. The GAL had lots of energy around the issue, he was working and engaging appropriately with both parents, so, for a portion of the mediation I basically stayed out of his way and he worked out the issues of custody and visitation.

He worked it out between the parents like a mediator would. The GAL was doing a fine job of negotiating custody and visitation, moving back and forth between the parents. The mother and her attorney were in the mediation room and the father and his attorney were in a caucus room. The GAL was the one moving back and forth negotiating the plans, instead of the mediator. I would not always do this, in fact, I would rarely do it. The reason I allowed it in this case is that I believe that we as mediators need to be aware of what is working and not working in the room. And in this case, it was working.

As mediators, we have to be flexible, we have to work with what is going on in the room and not force people into the format or the structure that we believe is best for them. Instead, we need to work with them and help them to find the format/structure that will work best for them in addressing the issues they have come to work on in mediation.

The other issue in this case was that of seating arrangements. When ever you have someone in- between the parties in conflict, they are going to end up being very involved in that conversation. My preference would have been for the GAL to be opposite me at the other end of the table and the parents to be side by side with their attorneys and the State Child Protection workers and their attorney across the table. Then, I, as the mediator, am in the middle of the conversations and in this case the parents could have had conversations without someone in the middle. Seating is very important and you have to think about it. In this case I could have been more assertive when the GAL first sat down and asked him to move, but I did not. Once I made that decision I had to work with it and not disrupt the flow of what was happening in the process.

So, as with all other things in mediation…. Control is a relative and flexible concept. I guess that is why we all love the work so much.