If you have not seen the 7 minute response to the passage of Prop 8 by Keith Olbermann watch it here.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVHXsl-n2E
Reindeer
14 years ago
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Monday, October 06, 2008
Making a Difference in Harlem
How can we make a difference in the lives of children who live in poverty? I recently learned of a man named Geoffrey Canada who founded a program in Harlem called “The Harlem Children’s Zone.” Geoffrey had his second child in his mid forties and became aware of all of the research on stimulating a child’s brain. He was working in Harlem with families in poverty and he sent his staff out to see if low income parents knew about this research, they did not.Geoffrey set out to change the culture of Harlem, so that teenage pregnancy and going to prison were not the norm. He founded The Harlem Children’s Zone which offers a holistic system of education, social-service and community-building programs to children and families in 97 intercity blocks of Harlem, 10,000 kids in all.
The programs at the Children’s Zone are based on research that shows that the most effective time to intervene in the life of a low income child is the ages of 0-3, when only the parents can be the one to make a difference. The research highlights the benefits of parents singing songs, playing games and talking with their young children. The more parents interact with their children with language, the more the child grasps language skills.
In a 1980’s study completed in Kansas City two sets of families were studied side by side. One set of families was on welfare and the other set of families had parents who were professionals. The study found that the biggest difference between the two families was language, the number of words the children heard during the first three years of life. Children whose parents were professionals heard 20 million more words during the first three years of life than those whose parents were on welfare. The words were mostly just the regular jibber jabber of a parent talking with their child. But those words had a profound effect of the child’s verbal ability. This study found that the number one determiner of later success in school was not family income, race or a parent’s educational level, it was the sheer number of words the parents spoke to their children.
In the early 1990’s economist James Heckman from the University of Chicago completed research on programs that are typically offered to disadvantaged youth. The study found that programs like job training , GED programs and programs for dropouts were all found as not helpful. These programs are all based on the belief that young people who can’t find a job and are struggling often lack a skill and if we can help them learn that missing skill, they will be ok. Heckman found that youth in these programs were missing basic skills and abilities such as the ability to communicate, ability to solve simple mathematical puzzles, read the newspaper, self-control, motivation, get out of bed, engage and be open to ideas. This led him to ask “How are these skills formed?”
Heckman found that if these basic skills are not formed by the time a child reaches kindergarten, it becomes harder and harder. If a child has not learned to read by age 8-10 it was very hard for them to learn and if by early adolescent you have not learned the non-cognitive skills (motivation, self-control, engagement) it was harder to learn those as well.
The good news was the reverse is also true.
If you can get to a poor child early on… even small interventions can have huge effects.
Another study was conducted on a group of disadvantaged African American children.
In one group in this study the children attended a basic pre-school program 2 ½ hours a day for five days a week for two years. The other group did not attend this type of program. Upon following up on these children the researchers found that those who attended the pre-school program showed a positive difference in crime rates, integration into the larger society. home ownership and salary rates.
One final study focused on the kind of language used in homes where parents are on welfare versus professional parents. This study counted the number of encouraging words versus discouraging words used when speaking to the children. The study found that children with professional parents heard 500,000 words of encouragement and only 80,000 words of discouragement by the age of three. On the other hand, children whose parents were on welfare heard 200,000 words of discouragements and only 80,000 words of encouragement by the age of 3.
Physical and verbal punishment have a huge effect on child development. Geoffrey Canada shared that “One of the things that frustrated him and others working in communities with low income and disadvantaged kids is parents telling kids “Get over here” “sit down” “shut up” “Don’t you make me come over there and get you” “you just listen”. And that is a two year old they are talking to, who talks to a two year old like that? Lot’s of people who really believe that the parent’s job is to make their child listen and become passive, so the child does what ever the parent wants. In this scenario, the child has no opinion to express, doesn’t leave the parents side, and doesn’t touch anything without the parents permission. Many parents believe that a child that looks like this is a “good” child. So you see all of this energy being put into shutting a child down, into making them stop. This is done without realizing how a child’s brain develops , a child’s brain develops by exploring their world. Our job as parents is to help our children explore the world”.
It is counter-intuitive for many parents to believe that a good kid is not a quiet kid.
We have been trying to improve the lives of children by focusing on their parents… now the children themselves are being focused on. Break the cycle of poverty at the childhood level. It is hard to “give up” on those who are in their late teens or early 20’s…. but if we can teach them to be good parents, their children can make it out of poverty. It all starts by reading to you children, every night.
So far this is working. Last year, the first youth who have been involved in the program entered 3rd grade and took the NY State achievement tests. The results were astonishing, the children are all poor, African American and most from single parent homes, some with parents who were teenage mothers, high school dropouts or had trouble with the law. All of the children have reading scores above the NYC average, their math scores were phenomenal, more than 95% of them on grade level.
The information on what children need to develop in the most positive way is nothing new to families in middle class America, but it is different for the families in Harlem who know nothing about the “latest research.”
The big question is why does it have to be this way?
Why can’t we do this for all children?
For more information on “The Harlem Children’s Zone visit their website: http://www.hcz.org/home
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Breaking the Sound Barrier
Chuck Yeager was the first person to break the sound barrier. When he landed from the flight the media ran to him and asked what he had to say. His first comment was “just before you break through the sound barrier, the cockpit shakes the most.”
When I heard this story about Chuck Yeager I couldn’t help but think about working with people in conflict. Because the “cockpit” usually has to shake before the parties are able to break through the conflict.
What would have happened if Chuck would have backed off when the cockpit was shaking? If he had backed off, he would not have broken the sound barrier and nothing would have changed. Because he pushed through the shaking and the fear of the unknown, he became a legend.
When serving as a mediator, are we doing our job if we back off when the going gets tough? Or is it our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side? If we don’t help them go somewhere new then what good are we?
I believe it is our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side, helping them to break their own sound barrier. We can only do this if we are able to tolerate the shaking ourselves…. If we stop the process because of the shaking, we are getting in the way of the parties moving forward.
How do you get through the shaking? Share with others by leaving a comment on this blog…
When I heard this story about Chuck Yeager I couldn’t help but think about working with people in conflict. Because the “cockpit” usually has to shake before the parties are able to break through the conflict.
What would have happened if Chuck would have backed off when the cockpit was shaking? If he had backed off, he would not have broken the sound barrier and nothing would have changed. Because he pushed through the shaking and the fear of the unknown, he became a legend.
When serving as a mediator, are we doing our job if we back off when the going gets tough? Or is it our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side? If we don’t help them go somewhere new then what good are we?
I believe it is our job to support the parties through the shaking and help them come out on the other side, helping them to break their own sound barrier. We can only do this if we are able to tolerate the shaking ourselves…. If we stop the process because of the shaking, we are getting in the way of the parties moving forward.
How do you get through the shaking? Share with others by leaving a comment on this blog…
Sunday, June 08, 2008
Fighting in Front of Your Kids
Jun 5, 2008 10:44
Psychologically Speaking: Fighting in front of the kids
By DR. BATYA L. LUDMAN
Dear Dr. Batya,
As hard as we try not to, it seems inevitable that we end up fighting in front of our kids. They get upset and at times even try and intervene. Do you think our quarrelling has negative consequences for the kids or do they see us as just having different opinions and an open yet heated discussion?
- L.L.
Children have the potential to learn a tremendous amount by watching how two adults disagree and handle conflict, an inevitability in even every good marriage. How well they will do and whether they will be adversely impacted depends in part on how you resolve your arguments, the tone these arguments take, how well you get along when you are not fighting and your child's age and stage of development. It will also depend on what the issues are, how often you fight and even when you fight.
The fact that you wonder if the children will be affected might suggest that something about the way the two of you disagree has you concerned. Ask yourself how your child acts during and after a fight. For example, does he take on the role of mediator and try and persuade you to resolve things? Does he raise his voice, run away, appear anxious or upset or not talk to or listen to one of you afterward? Does he imitate you? Is he overly dependent on his siblings in a way that suggests a lack of trust in his parents?
One thing we know for sure is that children are far more aware of fighting than parents think, so be aware of what information they get from an argument. They don't miss a thing! It is natural and normal for couples to fight as no two people agree on everything. It can even be a healthy and constructive way to resolve tension if done appropriately. Children can learn much as observers and need not feel threatened or insecure, assuming they see that you respect and love each other, you quarrel, resolve your issues and then become warm and affectionate once again to each other.
Fighting in itself doesn't destroy either a marriage or the children's psyches. It is how you fight that determines how your child will ultimately do. What gets said and how is it said? Are you calm, considerate, open, honest and mature or do you interrupt, bring up issues that are not relevant to the argument or verbally abuse each other? Do you include your children in your fight, forcing them to take sides or blaming them for your issues?
While you can, and maybe even should, fight in front of your children, your goal is to work through and resolve issues by being both a good role model and teaching healthy conflict resolution skills. If you argue frequently, but never seem to resolve an issue, children will see that discussion does little to solve problems. When children experience constant conflict and either don't see issues being resolved or don't see the fight end with parents making up, the take-away message is that fighting is bad. They may see you as competitive, mean, scary and indecisive, and they themselves may feel insecure, stressed or assume their behavior is the cause of your conflict.
As it is, children may draw the wrong conclusions and sometimes completely misunderstand what you're arguing about, or assume by your tone that you're arguing when in fact you aren't. Children need lots of reassurance that all is okay.
While many issues can, and should, be brought up in front of the kids, you should always be aware of the impact they might have. You know your own child and his needs best. Many disagreements or differences of parenting styles, for example, can be easily addressed in front of the children and input from the children even discussed. However, if two parents disagree such that one parent is more permissive than the other and brings this up in front of the child, the child will soon learn to manipulate his parents and ask the more lenient one for what he wants. Private or confidential issues around intimacy, sex, work, money or other people should also not be aired in front of your children.
If you think that fighting can never take place in front of your child, be aware that by protecting your child from anger or conflict, you may inadvertently deprive him of an opportunity to perfect interpersonal skills that he'll need later in life. I have seen many an adult in my office who, having been shielded from all parental conflict as a child, has difficulty in his current relationships because he avoids conflict at all costs. Wouldn't it have been better for him to have learned that parents who love each other can acknowledge their differences and frustrations yet be tolerant, accepting and ultimately forgiving, and move on?
In an atmosphere of love within the family, there will be room for disagreements and differences of opinion because people can tolerate this and express themselves constructively and in a healthy way. Stay tuned until next time when I'll address just how to argue and how to resolve quarrels and provide some rules for fighting fairly.
The writer is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Ra'anana. ludman@netvision.net.il
Psychologically Speaking: Fighting in front of the kids
By DR. BATYA L. LUDMAN
Dear Dr. Batya,
As hard as we try not to, it seems inevitable that we end up fighting in front of our kids. They get upset and at times even try and intervene. Do you think our quarrelling has negative consequences for the kids or do they see us as just having different opinions and an open yet heated discussion?
- L.L.
Children have the potential to learn a tremendous amount by watching how two adults disagree and handle conflict, an inevitability in even every good marriage. How well they will do and whether they will be adversely impacted depends in part on how you resolve your arguments, the tone these arguments take, how well you get along when you are not fighting and your child's age and stage of development. It will also depend on what the issues are, how often you fight and even when you fight.
The fact that you wonder if the children will be affected might suggest that something about the way the two of you disagree has you concerned. Ask yourself how your child acts during and after a fight. For example, does he take on the role of mediator and try and persuade you to resolve things? Does he raise his voice, run away, appear anxious or upset or not talk to or listen to one of you afterward? Does he imitate you? Is he overly dependent on his siblings in a way that suggests a lack of trust in his parents?
One thing we know for sure is that children are far more aware of fighting than parents think, so be aware of what information they get from an argument. They don't miss a thing! It is natural and normal for couples to fight as no two people agree on everything. It can even be a healthy and constructive way to resolve tension if done appropriately. Children can learn much as observers and need not feel threatened or insecure, assuming they see that you respect and love each other, you quarrel, resolve your issues and then become warm and affectionate once again to each other.
Fighting in itself doesn't destroy either a marriage or the children's psyches. It is how you fight that determines how your child will ultimately do. What gets said and how is it said? Are you calm, considerate, open, honest and mature or do you interrupt, bring up issues that are not relevant to the argument or verbally abuse each other? Do you include your children in your fight, forcing them to take sides or blaming them for your issues?
While you can, and maybe even should, fight in front of your children, your goal is to work through and resolve issues by being both a good role model and teaching healthy conflict resolution skills. If you argue frequently, but never seem to resolve an issue, children will see that discussion does little to solve problems. When children experience constant conflict and either don't see issues being resolved or don't see the fight end with parents making up, the take-away message is that fighting is bad. They may see you as competitive, mean, scary and indecisive, and they themselves may feel insecure, stressed or assume their behavior is the cause of your conflict.
As it is, children may draw the wrong conclusions and sometimes completely misunderstand what you're arguing about, or assume by your tone that you're arguing when in fact you aren't. Children need lots of reassurance that all is okay.
While many issues can, and should, be brought up in front of the kids, you should always be aware of the impact they might have. You know your own child and his needs best. Many disagreements or differences of parenting styles, for example, can be easily addressed in front of the children and input from the children even discussed. However, if two parents disagree such that one parent is more permissive than the other and brings this up in front of the child, the child will soon learn to manipulate his parents and ask the more lenient one for what he wants. Private or confidential issues around intimacy, sex, work, money or other people should also not be aired in front of your children.
If you think that fighting can never take place in front of your child, be aware that by protecting your child from anger or conflict, you may inadvertently deprive him of an opportunity to perfect interpersonal skills that he'll need later in life. I have seen many an adult in my office who, having been shielded from all parental conflict as a child, has difficulty in his current relationships because he avoids conflict at all costs. Wouldn't it have been better for him to have learned that parents who love each other can acknowledge their differences and frustrations yet be tolerant, accepting and ultimately forgiving, and move on?
In an atmosphere of love within the family, there will be room for disagreements and differences of opinion because people can tolerate this and express themselves constructively and in a healthy way. Stay tuned until next time when I'll address just how to argue and how to resolve quarrels and provide some rules for fighting fairly.
The writer is a licensed clinical psychologist in private practice in Ra'anana. ludman@netvision.net.il
Saturday, June 07, 2008
I Agree, We Disagree
I Agree, We Disagree: Conflict is a social problem, resolution takes behavioral skills
Diana deRegnier
April 23, 2008
Radical Collaboration coaches Jim Tamm and Ron Luyet have taught conflict resolution skills to individuals, employees, corporate teams and the military. Their clients include the State of California; Hewlitt Foundation; Catholic Healthcare West; Boeing; U.S. & Canadian Departments of Defense; International Management Program in Stockholm; NASA; Pfizer; Sony Ericson; Swedish Work Environment Authority; and United Nations Office of Oversight Services. Jim and Ron encourage us not to fear conflict. "If your relationship doesn't bump up against conflict every once in a while, you're either in complete denial or overly-medicated." There is an oft told tale in the Marin County community about two brothers who owned the Horizons Restaurant in the quaint, touristy San Francisco bay city of Sausalito. As years passed, brotherly love turned contentious. I've forgotten the focus of their disagreement, but the object of dissension is often a token of misplaced dissent. For instance, couples argue most about money, when the real problem is how they feel in the relationship -- but I digress. One stormy night, customers fled early into wicked wind and pouring rain. Okay, maybe there was only a storm in their hearts but it made candles flicker ominously and waves crash against Horizon's sea wall. The brothers argued. Finally, brother one stomped out into the wretched night and returned with a chainsaw. As brother two looked on in horror, brother one cut into an exquisite burl wood table, screaming, "All right, here's your half of the restaurant, do with it what you want." Now, I know that the restaurant was built in 1898 by the San Francisco Yacht Club and the building was purchased by a local family in 1959. It now houses two acclaimed restaurants, Ondine upstairs and Horizons downstairs. Perhaps the brothers resolved their dispute by splitting the building and each follows his dream with his own enterprise – perhaps. Whether talking about a relationship with a sibling, spouse, friend, peer or colleague(s), we will eventually disagree. The friction may be minor, dismissed easily or resolved over dinner. Along the other end of the continuum, dissent may lead to severe encounters that leave both parties with ill-feelings which re-surface again and again in miscommunication, sarcasm or even threats. Our behavior in conflict exemplifies our true principles. How we treat each other and how we take care of ourselves in disagreements are ethical and moral issues. Will we take the high road and treat our antagonist with respect, compassion and empathy? Or, will we descend into malice, vindictiveness or even hatred? Will we, or the other party, resort to what Harvard Medical School calls Intermittent Explosive Disorder with recurrent episodes of angry and potentially violent outbursts? Or, will we demonstrat calm, rational-thinking and forgiveness? Hopefully, in the end we will resolve disputes with an outcome that respectfully satisfies the needs of each individual. Jim and Ron are confident that this is possible even in the most provocative situations. Their approach of Radical Collaboration has proved significant. One follow up research study tracked participants from nine countries over a six year period. Monterrey Tech University in Cuernavaca, Mexico determined the following gains in effectiveness in conflict environments:49.5 percent increase in reducing participants' own defensiveness 44.8 percent increase in getting their interests met31.5 percent increase in successful problem-solving26.4 percent increase in building and maintaining long term climates of trustRadical Collaboration teaches skills quickly and easily. The State of California Public Employment Relations Board, where Jim Tamm was a senior administrative law judge and San Francisco regional director, showed almost one hundred organizations reduced their conflict by 67 percent. The ten most troubled organizations at the start of the project reduced their conflict by 85 percent over 3 years. Participants also reported significant gains in their ability to build and maintain climates of trust.Jim and Ron's book "Radical Collaboration: Five Essential Skills to Overcome Defensiveness and Build Successful Relationships" provides a practical approach to traversing challenging, distrustful confrontations to problem-solving that meets the interests of all parties with awareness, insight, forgiveness and respect. They advise us to explore our feelings wherein our defensiveness lies. "Do not avoid or deny fears, but rather move toward them, bringing them fully into your consciousness and acknowledging them. While this is counterintuitive, it is the most effective way known to cope with fears and to reduce defensiveness." Jim and Ron explain further: "When people feel insignificant, incompetent, or unlikable, they may act in ways to avoid those uncomfortable feelings." Some defense mechanisms we may witness in ourselves or others: sleepiness; intellectualizing issues; overeating (bring on the chocolate); flooding others with information; talking too fast; trivializing issues with humor (see above); abuse of alcohol or drugs. In addition, defensiveness may drop our IQ 20 points.Jim Tamm:"Remaining non-defensive is the single, most important thing you can do to turn conflict into collaboration," When we feel safe, secure and trusting we are likely to enter into and stay in the "Green Zone." Creativity flourishes and people, unfettered by fear and mistrust, are energized and inspired to contribute their best work. This is where relationships are built. In the Green Zone, people:
Seek to understandValue DifferencesConnect with othersStrive for mutual successLook for solutionsAre self-accountable Ron Luyet:In contrast, in the Red Zone, trust and collaboration are destroyed. When we perceive a threat to our well-being we respond in what we believe is self-protection. The Red Zone is not a place that fosters collaboration, innovation or creative problem-solving. In the Red Zone, people: Feel threatenedUse shame and humiliationTry to defeat othersSeek to win for self onlyNeed to be rightLook for blame. Both zones require exploring skillfully and deeply to learn more about underlying unresolved feelings. Though it sometimes takes "emotional dentistry" to pull us out of denial, only then can we take action to reduce inhibitors. Creating an atmosphere that diminishes others' overreactions as well as our own helps build collaboration. Jim and Ron have determined that solutions require Five Essential Skills:Collaborative Intention: which requires staying in the Green Zone and unhooking from buttons that trigger defensivenessTruthfulness: the grand simplifier, paired with listening – the most often taught, yet unused skillSelf-Accountability: which requires taking responsibility for choices we makeSelf-Awareness and Awareness of Others: understanding our behavior in relationships and gaining empathy for our opponent. Rigidity is the enemy; breaking free of past survival mechanisms, one feeling at a time is key.Problem-Solving and Negotiating: resulting in strategies for collaborative successJim and Ron have integrated the use of a relationship profile into their program: the heavily researched Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory. FIRO was created by Dr. Will Schutz for the U.S. Navy. Questions relate to our desires about interactions with others in contrast to one's actual behavior in relationships. They inspire us to explore how we feel about including others in our lives; to what extent we include others; how we are included by others; our desires and feelings about influence and control compared to feeling influenced or controlled by others; our openness; feelings of competence and significance; and our comfort levels with closeness and social interaction. Answers are meant to provide just a snapshot in time and circumstance. Scores provide clues to preferences versus rigidity of feelings and behavior. They show neither good nor bad. Community needs generals and privates, leaders and followers – we cannot all be in charge, first, or greatest in every realm. The way I see it, musicians and artists need an audience of appreciators. Comments from admirers of the book and the optional workshop in which Ron or Jim teaches Radical Collaboration are plentiful and telling. For example:"How do organizations mired in contentious and destructive debate come around to productive relationships? It requires Radical Collaboration," says Soledad O'Brien, CNN American Morning. William Hobgood, former Assistant Secretary of Labor comments, "Effective relationships aren't created by magic, they take skill and effort… The ideas and tools [of Radical Collaboration] can make a powerful difference in any relationship." Michael Rossiter, Vice President of Chubb, PLC, says, "Tamm and Luyet are experienced guides and have provided us with the tools and roadmap to skillfully navigate our interior landscapes and create successful collaborative outcomes." In summary, Jim and Ron caution Radical Collaboration provides tools, but it is ultimately our job to change our lives. We are the CEO of our own redevelopment project. Jim and Ron advocate 15 actions to take today to improve your ability to be in successful relationships: Tell the truthRealize that you chooseSeek deeper self awarenessRespond emotionallyGive up blame and postpone judgmentSeek not to consciously hurt othersTake time to envision yourself as you want to beConsciously change your limiting beliefsAssert yourselfBe as sincere and as vulnerable as possibleBe in touch with your body and its wisdom Seek a higher meaning or purpose in your lifeTreat your personal growth with respect, excitement, and patienceGive to giveLaugh a little: Some things are much too important to be taken seriously. Their last recommendation: Bring to mind the person with whom you have conflict. As you visualize him or her, coordinate the following with the inhale and exhale of your breath. "May you be free from suffering. May you be at peace." I would add the additional recommendation that you repeat the blessings, replacing "you" with "I." "May I be free from suffering. May I be at peace." Namaste!Diana deRegnier writes freelance and the syndicated SpiritLinks column for United Press International (UPI) ReligionandSpirituality.com and AmericanChronicle.com from the San Francisco Bay Area. Her articles can be found online and in print publications around the world including Australia, Sweden, Italy, Spain and India. Diana is managing editor for the nonprofit program http://www.SpiritLinksNewsletter.org for spiritual explorers of any or no religious affiliation. © copyright 2008 by Diana deRegnier
I am a freelance writer on lifestyle topics relevant to finding our way in this complex society. My subjects range from "Confessions of a Chocoholic" to "Mike Farrell: Raw, tenacious, principled" to "Ben Stein Roused by Suppression in Science" and many points outside and in between.My articles also appear on UPI ReligionandSpirituality.com, SpiritLinksNewsletter.org, Topix.com and numerous sites around the globe. My writings are sometimes serious, curious, humorous, compassionate and, if I do my job right, always thought-provoking. Rather than lecture or proselytize, I write in first-person-wisdom and let you decide how my thinking fits for you. Thanks for joining me in my journey.
Diana deRegnier
April 23, 2008
Radical Collaboration coaches Jim Tamm and Ron Luyet have taught conflict resolution skills to individuals, employees, corporate teams and the military. Their clients include the State of California; Hewlitt Foundation; Catholic Healthcare West; Boeing; U.S. & Canadian Departments of Defense; International Management Program in Stockholm; NASA; Pfizer; Sony Ericson; Swedish Work Environment Authority; and United Nations Office of Oversight Services. Jim and Ron encourage us not to fear conflict. "If your relationship doesn't bump up against conflict every once in a while, you're either in complete denial or overly-medicated." There is an oft told tale in the Marin County community about two brothers who owned the Horizons Restaurant in the quaint, touristy San Francisco bay city of Sausalito. As years passed, brotherly love turned contentious. I've forgotten the focus of their disagreement, but the object of dissension is often a token of misplaced dissent. For instance, couples argue most about money, when the real problem is how they feel in the relationship -- but I digress. One stormy night, customers fled early into wicked wind and pouring rain. Okay, maybe there was only a storm in their hearts but it made candles flicker ominously and waves crash against Horizon's sea wall. The brothers argued. Finally, brother one stomped out into the wretched night and returned with a chainsaw. As brother two looked on in horror, brother one cut into an exquisite burl wood table, screaming, "All right, here's your half of the restaurant, do with it what you want." Now, I know that the restaurant was built in 1898 by the San Francisco Yacht Club and the building was purchased by a local family in 1959. It now houses two acclaimed restaurants, Ondine upstairs and Horizons downstairs. Perhaps the brothers resolved their dispute by splitting the building and each follows his dream with his own enterprise – perhaps. Whether talking about a relationship with a sibling, spouse, friend, peer or colleague(s), we will eventually disagree. The friction may be minor, dismissed easily or resolved over dinner. Along the other end of the continuum, dissent may lead to severe encounters that leave both parties with ill-feelings which re-surface again and again in miscommunication, sarcasm or even threats. Our behavior in conflict exemplifies our true principles. How we treat each other and how we take care of ourselves in disagreements are ethical and moral issues. Will we take the high road and treat our antagonist with respect, compassion and empathy? Or, will we descend into malice, vindictiveness or even hatred? Will we, or the other party, resort to what Harvard Medical School calls Intermittent Explosive Disorder with recurrent episodes of angry and potentially violent outbursts? Or, will we demonstrat calm, rational-thinking and forgiveness? Hopefully, in the end we will resolve disputes with an outcome that respectfully satisfies the needs of each individual. Jim and Ron are confident that this is possible even in the most provocative situations. Their approach of Radical Collaboration has proved significant. One follow up research study tracked participants from nine countries over a six year period. Monterrey Tech University in Cuernavaca, Mexico determined the following gains in effectiveness in conflict environments:49.5 percent increase in reducing participants' own defensiveness 44.8 percent increase in getting their interests met31.5 percent increase in successful problem-solving26.4 percent increase in building and maintaining long term climates of trustRadical Collaboration teaches skills quickly and easily. The State of California Public Employment Relations Board, where Jim Tamm was a senior administrative law judge and San Francisco regional director, showed almost one hundred organizations reduced their conflict by 67 percent. The ten most troubled organizations at the start of the project reduced their conflict by 85 percent over 3 years. Participants also reported significant gains in their ability to build and maintain climates of trust.Jim and Ron's book "Radical Collaboration: Five Essential Skills to Overcome Defensiveness and Build Successful Relationships" provides a practical approach to traversing challenging, distrustful confrontations to problem-solving that meets the interests of all parties with awareness, insight, forgiveness and respect. They advise us to explore our feelings wherein our defensiveness lies. "Do not avoid or deny fears, but rather move toward them, bringing them fully into your consciousness and acknowledging them. While this is counterintuitive, it is the most effective way known to cope with fears and to reduce defensiveness." Jim and Ron explain further: "When people feel insignificant, incompetent, or unlikable, they may act in ways to avoid those uncomfortable feelings." Some defense mechanisms we may witness in ourselves or others: sleepiness; intellectualizing issues; overeating (bring on the chocolate); flooding others with information; talking too fast; trivializing issues with humor (see above); abuse of alcohol or drugs. In addition, defensiveness may drop our IQ 20 points.Jim Tamm:"Remaining non-defensive is the single, most important thing you can do to turn conflict into collaboration," When we feel safe, secure and trusting we are likely to enter into and stay in the "Green Zone." Creativity flourishes and people, unfettered by fear and mistrust, are energized and inspired to contribute their best work. This is where relationships are built. In the Green Zone, people:
Seek to understandValue DifferencesConnect with othersStrive for mutual successLook for solutionsAre self-accountable Ron Luyet:In contrast, in the Red Zone, trust and collaboration are destroyed. When we perceive a threat to our well-being we respond in what we believe is self-protection. The Red Zone is not a place that fosters collaboration, innovation or creative problem-solving. In the Red Zone, people: Feel threatenedUse shame and humiliationTry to defeat othersSeek to win for self onlyNeed to be rightLook for blame. Both zones require exploring skillfully and deeply to learn more about underlying unresolved feelings. Though it sometimes takes "emotional dentistry" to pull us out of denial, only then can we take action to reduce inhibitors. Creating an atmosphere that diminishes others' overreactions as well as our own helps build collaboration. Jim and Ron have determined that solutions require Five Essential Skills:Collaborative Intention: which requires staying in the Green Zone and unhooking from buttons that trigger defensivenessTruthfulness: the grand simplifier, paired with listening – the most often taught, yet unused skillSelf-Accountability: which requires taking responsibility for choices we makeSelf-Awareness and Awareness of Others: understanding our behavior in relationships and gaining empathy for our opponent. Rigidity is the enemy; breaking free of past survival mechanisms, one feeling at a time is key.Problem-Solving and Negotiating: resulting in strategies for collaborative successJim and Ron have integrated the use of a relationship profile into their program: the heavily researched Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) theory. FIRO was created by Dr. Will Schutz for the U.S. Navy. Questions relate to our desires about interactions with others in contrast to one's actual behavior in relationships. They inspire us to explore how we feel about including others in our lives; to what extent we include others; how we are included by others; our desires and feelings about influence and control compared to feeling influenced or controlled by others; our openness; feelings of competence and significance; and our comfort levels with closeness and social interaction. Answers are meant to provide just a snapshot in time and circumstance. Scores provide clues to preferences versus rigidity of feelings and behavior. They show neither good nor bad. Community needs generals and privates, leaders and followers – we cannot all be in charge, first, or greatest in every realm. The way I see it, musicians and artists need an audience of appreciators. Comments from admirers of the book and the optional workshop in which Ron or Jim teaches Radical Collaboration are plentiful and telling. For example:"How do organizations mired in contentious and destructive debate come around to productive relationships? It requires Radical Collaboration," says Soledad O'Brien, CNN American Morning. William Hobgood, former Assistant Secretary of Labor comments, "Effective relationships aren't created by magic, they take skill and effort… The ideas and tools [of Radical Collaboration] can make a powerful difference in any relationship." Michael Rossiter, Vice President of Chubb, PLC, says, "Tamm and Luyet are experienced guides and have provided us with the tools and roadmap to skillfully navigate our interior landscapes and create successful collaborative outcomes." In summary, Jim and Ron caution Radical Collaboration provides tools, but it is ultimately our job to change our lives. We are the CEO of our own redevelopment project. Jim and Ron advocate 15 actions to take today to improve your ability to be in successful relationships: Tell the truthRealize that you chooseSeek deeper self awarenessRespond emotionallyGive up blame and postpone judgmentSeek not to consciously hurt othersTake time to envision yourself as you want to beConsciously change your limiting beliefsAssert yourselfBe as sincere and as vulnerable as possibleBe in touch with your body and its wisdom Seek a higher meaning or purpose in your lifeTreat your personal growth with respect, excitement, and patienceGive to giveLaugh a little: Some things are much too important to be taken seriously. Their last recommendation: Bring to mind the person with whom you have conflict. As you visualize him or her, coordinate the following with the inhale and exhale of your breath. "May you be free from suffering. May you be at peace." I would add the additional recommendation that you repeat the blessings, replacing "you" with "I." "May I be free from suffering. May I be at peace." Namaste!Diana deRegnier writes freelance and the syndicated SpiritLinks column for United Press International (UPI) ReligionandSpirituality.com and AmericanChronicle.com from the San Francisco Bay Area. Her articles can be found online and in print publications around the world including Australia, Sweden, Italy, Spain and India. Diana is managing editor for the nonprofit program http://www.SpiritLinksNewsletter.org for spiritual explorers of any or no religious affiliation. © copyright 2008 by Diana deRegnier
I am a freelance writer on lifestyle topics relevant to finding our way in this complex society. My subjects range from "Confessions of a Chocoholic" to "Mike Farrell: Raw, tenacious, principled" to "Ben Stein Roused by Suppression in Science" and many points outside and in between.My articles also appear on UPI ReligionandSpirituality.com, SpiritLinksNewsletter.org, Topix.com and numerous sites around the globe. My writings are sometimes serious, curious, humorous, compassionate and, if I do my job right, always thought-provoking. Rather than lecture or proselytize, I write in first-person-wisdom and let you decide how my thinking fits for you. Thanks for joining me in my journey.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Feelings.... Nothing more that feelings......
I found this post on a blog. I found it interesting and applicable to mediation.... As mediators we should always take a moment prior to a session and identify our emotions so that we can control our own reactions and biases.
Enjoy......
How are you feeling today?April 21, 2008 — Gregory Kyles
Most people do not stop to reflect upon the meaning of that question, yet typically their answer is “OK.” During the hurry of the day, it may be a bit much to consider how one might be “feeling.”
It is the very act of pausing and considering one’s feelings that are significant to anger control. Most people understand the concept of emotional intelligence - all those skills that assist people to manage their relationships successfully and are vital to conflict resolution, anger control, and positive outcome. It would be to our benefit to reflect upon the relationships we have and the feelings that arise and consider if we know how to create a win-win situation when conflict arises. Often, we are not taught the skills of emotional intelligence or conflict resolution; instead, we react and do not know how to respond.
Remember the last time you had a physical? The doctor may have stuck your knee with a small hammer, your knee reacted automatically, and your leg kicked out. This is similar to when we react in anger. At this point, our reaction is “programmed” to yell, sulk, stuff, berate, criticize, and on and on. When we embark on changing the course in our relationships with ourselves and others, we make a conscious choice to make internal changes for the better. We know our triggers, reactions, and behavior. We take accountability for our actions in anger and conflict.
Knowing how you “feel” becomes the guidance system that helps you navigate your triggers. Make the conscious choice to take charge of your feelings and your actions by resolving your conflict.
By Sonia Brill, LCSW, CAMF http://www.soniabrillconsulting.com/
Enjoy......
How are you feeling today?April 21, 2008 — Gregory Kyles
Most people do not stop to reflect upon the meaning of that question, yet typically their answer is “OK.” During the hurry of the day, it may be a bit much to consider how one might be “feeling.”
It is the very act of pausing and considering one’s feelings that are significant to anger control. Most people understand the concept of emotional intelligence - all those skills that assist people to manage their relationships successfully and are vital to conflict resolution, anger control, and positive outcome. It would be to our benefit to reflect upon the relationships we have and the feelings that arise and consider if we know how to create a win-win situation when conflict arises. Often, we are not taught the skills of emotional intelligence or conflict resolution; instead, we react and do not know how to respond.
Remember the last time you had a physical? The doctor may have stuck your knee with a small hammer, your knee reacted automatically, and your leg kicked out. This is similar to when we react in anger. At this point, our reaction is “programmed” to yell, sulk, stuff, berate, criticize, and on and on. When we embark on changing the course in our relationships with ourselves and others, we make a conscious choice to make internal changes for the better. We know our triggers, reactions, and behavior. We take accountability for our actions in anger and conflict.
Knowing how you “feel” becomes the guidance system that helps you navigate your triggers. Make the conscious choice to take charge of your feelings and your actions by resolving your conflict.
By Sonia Brill, LCSW, CAMF http://www.soniabrillconsulting.com/
Monday, April 14, 2008
Conflict Coaching
Conflict Coaching is a new skill I have been learning and practicing over the past six months. Many ask me "what is it" and I have had a hard time responding.... so here is another try at describing what Conflict Coaching is and what it is not.
The best overall definition of Conflict Coaching I have found is
"Conflict Coaching is a structured process that helps people to develop and enhance their skills, knowledge and competencies to effectively engage in and manage interpersonal conflict."
The best overall definition of Conflict Coaching I have found is
"Conflict Coaching is a structured process that helps people to develop and enhance their skills, knowledge and competencies to effectively engage in and manage interpersonal conflict."
- Conflict Coaching is a structured process in which the Coach helps the Coachee reach their own goals.
- Conflict Coaching is based on the value of self-determination and is a process in which the Coachee is guided to find their own solutions.
- Conflict Coaching is focused on the future.
- The Coach provides the Coachee support, accountability and leads them through a methodical process that is task and action orientated.
Conflict Coaching is NOT Mentoring, Therapy or Consultation.
- In a Mentoring relationship, the Mentor gives the Mentee advice and helps them to decide the steps they need to take to move to the next level of their development.
- In Therapy, the Therapist assists the Client to gain understanding and awareness of the sources of their concerns and/or problems. Therapy also tends to be focused on the past.
- Consultation is a process in which the Consultant is giving the Client advice in regard to what they need to do and how they should do it.
Coaching is an excellent process for those who are struggling with a current conflict situation or want to examine the way in which they deal with conflict as a whole. The process typically takes between four and seven hours and is completed in one hour sessions. The Coaching can be done in person or over the phone and one to two sessions are scheduled each week.
For more information on Conflict Coaching visit http://www.kathyelton.com/
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Be Different
There are many professions in the justice system that tell people what to do with their lives.... Judges, attorneys, court commissioners, arbitrators and early neutral evaluators to name a few. The legal system also tends to tell people what they can and can't do and how they can and can't do it.... There are certain forms, timelines, formats and protocols they must follow to appropriately file something with the court.As mediators, we have the opportunity to be different. We have the opportunity to be client-centered and support their self-determination. My experience in serving as a mediator is that parties often don't know what to do when you won't tell them what they should do, give your opinion about their situation or tell them what you would do in their situation..... Yes, they will ask.... but does this mean we should answer? I say "NO." We should reframe the moment when they ask as a moment to push them... to challenge them... to help them to think about their situation differently... OR we can be like the rest of the system and we can tell them what to do or what we think about their situation. In sharing our thoughts and opinions about their case, we take the control away from the parties once again and become like all the others in the legal system where the focus too often is about resolving the case, not allowing the parties to resolve the issues.
I hope we, as mediators, can continue to offer a different process to parties who come to us for mediation. I hope we can sharpen our skills as mediators so that when parties are at an impasse and they look to us for help... our help comes in a form that builds the parties ability to consider ways to resolve their own dispute and we don't give into temptation and take the easy way out..... telling them what to do.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Quantum Questions
In a podcast in which Kathlyn Hendricks, Ph.D. & Gay Hendricks, Ph.D. are interviewed about relationships they share Five Quantum Questions. I think these questions can be useful in a mediation session so I wanted to share them.... They are:
1. Am I willing to resolve this?
2. How is this conflict/feeling familiar?
3. What can I say about this situation that is unarguable right now?
4. What do I really want? Specifically....
5. What is the simplest step you can take to move toward what you want?
I think these questions can be used by us when we are acting as mediators as well as we can ask the questions of ourselves when we are struggling with an issue....
For more information on the Hendricks and their work visit their website: http://www.hendricks.com/
1. Am I willing to resolve this?
2. How is this conflict/feeling familiar?
3. What can I say about this situation that is unarguable right now?
4. What do I really want? Specifically....
5. What is the simplest step you can take to move toward what you want?
I think these questions can be used by us when we are acting as mediators as well as we can ask the questions of ourselves when we are struggling with an issue....
For more information on the Hendricks and their work visit their website: http://www.hendricks.com/
Saturday, March 01, 2008
The Cost of Divorce
Family Law
Kinder, Gentler Collaborative Divorce Also Costs Less
Posted Dec 18, 2007, 02:48 pm CST By Martha Neil
A kinder, gentler method of getting divorced has won fans among both clients and counsel. But it has yet to win over some traditionalists, who wonder, for instance, why collaborative divorce must include a promise not to litigate. (Those who violate the ban on courtroom battle have to start over again with new counsel.)
“I have no issue … with two lawyers sitting down with two clients to work out a deal, but why it’s necessary to wrap all these conditions around it is beyond me,” David S. Goldberg, a Gaithersburg, Md., family law mediator tells the Daily Record, a Maryland legal and business publication.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of soon-to-be-former spouses and their lawyers are embracing collaborative divorce, as well as do-it-yourself divorce and mediation, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary animosity, reports the Associated Press.
"Most clients in a dispute are looking for an honorable peace, not war," writes David Hoffman, a Boston lawyer, in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece about collaborative law practice. "Collaborative lawyers can be just as zealous about seeking such a peace as litigators are about victory in the courtroom."
A recent American Bar Association ethics opinion (PDF) provides important support for collaborative divorce, by finding collaborative law agreements consistent with lawyers' obligations to serve their client's best interest, notes Hoffman, who chairs the Collaborative Law Committee of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. (What Hoffman describes as a "maverick" Colorado Bar Association ethics opinion earlier this year reaches a different conclusion than the ABA and several other state bar associations, however.)
Cost may also be a motivating factor in the quest for a peaceful resolution of a problem marriage: The Boston Law Collaborative, where Hoffman works, recently analyzed 199 of its divorce cases. It found that mediation had a median cost of $6,600, followed by $19,723 for collaborative divorce, $26,830 for a divorce settlement negotiated by counsel, and $77,746 for a litigated divorce.
Kinder, Gentler Collaborative Divorce Also Costs Less
Posted Dec 18, 2007, 02:48 pm CST By Martha Neil
A kinder, gentler method of getting divorced has won fans among both clients and counsel. But it has yet to win over some traditionalists, who wonder, for instance, why collaborative divorce must include a promise not to litigate. (Those who violate the ban on courtroom battle have to start over again with new counsel.)
“I have no issue … with two lawyers sitting down with two clients to work out a deal, but why it’s necessary to wrap all these conditions around it is beyond me,” David S. Goldberg, a Gaithersburg, Md., family law mediator tells the Daily Record, a Maryland legal and business publication.
Nonetheless, an increasing number of soon-to-be-former spouses and their lawyers are embracing collaborative divorce, as well as do-it-yourself divorce and mediation, in an effort to eliminate unnecessary animosity, reports the Associated Press.
"Most clients in a dispute are looking for an honorable peace, not war," writes David Hoffman, a Boston lawyer, in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed piece about collaborative law practice. "Collaborative lawyers can be just as zealous about seeking such a peace as litigators are about victory in the courtroom."
A recent American Bar Association ethics opinion (PDF) provides important support for collaborative divorce, by finding collaborative law agreements consistent with lawyers' obligations to serve their client's best interest, notes Hoffman, who chairs the Collaborative Law Committee of the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution. (What Hoffman describes as a "maverick" Colorado Bar Association ethics opinion earlier this year reaches a different conclusion than the ABA and several other state bar associations, however.)
Cost may also be a motivating factor in the quest for a peaceful resolution of a problem marriage: The Boston Law Collaborative, where Hoffman works, recently analyzed 199 of its divorce cases. It found that mediation had a median cost of $6,600, followed by $19,723 for collaborative divorce, $26,830 for a divorce settlement negotiated by counsel, and $77,746 for a litigated divorce.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Manipulation? Mediation?
Do Mediators Use Manipulation?
In the mediation community there has been a long standing debate regarding the manipulative nature of mediation. In the past week while conducting a Basic Mediation Training I found myself thinking a few times…. “Wow, am I telling these people to be manipulative?”
How does the possibility of manipulation enter into the mediation process? I believe there is a possibility of it in many areas……
Questions that are asked or not asked. As a mediator we make decisions throughout the mediation process regarding the questions we may ask, how we ask them, who we ask them too and something I think we don’t think of often enough…. The questions we decide not to ask.
The Tone we use in the mediation session. So much of communication is non-verbal and some of that is the tone of voice we use while interacting with the parties. Our tone of voice can set the “tone” of the mediation session. Different tones will set a different environment and we as the mediator are in control of that.
The use of Silence. Like the questions we ask or do not ask, the way we use silence, when we use silence and with whom we use silence can have an effect on the mediation session. The choice of the mediator to not use silence at a certain point in the mediation can also have an effect.
The use of Touch. This is a “touchy” subject. At times when I mediate I may reach across and touch a participant on the arm. This can be a gesture of support, a way to intervene and stop negative behavior, or can be used in a humorous moment.
Don’t get me wrong…. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if at times we employ the use of strategies that could be seen by others as manipulation. As with everything in mediation and in life, I think the key to this issue is being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it. There are some ways in which the techniques listed above can support and enhance the mediation process and the outcome for the parties.
For example, at times the use of questions can be used to Challenge the Thinking of the participants and/or encourage them to Think in a New Way. This is the goal of mediation in my mind. If we are not assisting the parties to explore new ideas or solutions or if we are not challenging their thinking on an issue or conflict, what are we doing? We have to have a strategy in order to help the parties move down the road to possible resolution.
In reality we do control some of the outcome in certain mediation sessions. We do it differently than other professions…... It is different because we do not overtly give advice or an opinion. Does this difference ensure self determination? If we are asking or not asking leading questions, how does this impact the outcome of a given session? How do mediators reconcile this as being better than active advice?
I think we reconcile it by remembering:
Open ended questions can give parties more latitude than direct advice.
Suggestive questions are less pressure than direct advice.
“What if” questions help parties to explore the possibilities.
And finally, no one ever has to agree to any terms of settlement…….
In the mediation community there has been a long standing debate regarding the manipulative nature of mediation. In the past week while conducting a Basic Mediation Training I found myself thinking a few times…. “Wow, am I telling these people to be manipulative?”
How does the possibility of manipulation enter into the mediation process? I believe there is a possibility of it in many areas……
Questions that are asked or not asked. As a mediator we make decisions throughout the mediation process regarding the questions we may ask, how we ask them, who we ask them too and something I think we don’t think of often enough…. The questions we decide not to ask.
The Tone we use in the mediation session. So much of communication is non-verbal and some of that is the tone of voice we use while interacting with the parties. Our tone of voice can set the “tone” of the mediation session. Different tones will set a different environment and we as the mediator are in control of that.
The use of Silence. Like the questions we ask or do not ask, the way we use silence, when we use silence and with whom we use silence can have an effect on the mediation session. The choice of the mediator to not use silence at a certain point in the mediation can also have an effect.
The use of Touch. This is a “touchy” subject. At times when I mediate I may reach across and touch a participant on the arm. This can be a gesture of support, a way to intervene and stop negative behavior, or can be used in a humorous moment.
Don’t get me wrong…. I don’t think that it is a bad thing if at times we employ the use of strategies that could be seen by others as manipulation. As with everything in mediation and in life, I think the key to this issue is being aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it. There are some ways in which the techniques listed above can support and enhance the mediation process and the outcome for the parties.
For example, at times the use of questions can be used to Challenge the Thinking of the participants and/or encourage them to Think in a New Way. This is the goal of mediation in my mind. If we are not assisting the parties to explore new ideas or solutions or if we are not challenging their thinking on an issue or conflict, what are we doing? We have to have a strategy in order to help the parties move down the road to possible resolution.
In reality we do control some of the outcome in certain mediation sessions. We do it differently than other professions…... It is different because we do not overtly give advice or an opinion. Does this difference ensure self determination? If we are asking or not asking leading questions, how does this impact the outcome of a given session? How do mediators reconcile this as being better than active advice?
I think we reconcile it by remembering:
Open ended questions can give parties more latitude than direct advice.
Suggestive questions are less pressure than direct advice.
“What if” questions help parties to explore the possibilities.
And finally, no one ever has to agree to any terms of settlement…….
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Leading the Blind
I had a dream about my dog Maddie last night. Maddie died in March of 2006 and she taught me many things about mediation and working with people. Maddie was a mini-schnauzer and was raised with her litter mate sister Molly until Molly died on 9/11/2001.
Shortly after losing her sister, Maddie became ill and early in 2002 was diagnosed with insulin dependent diabetes. She then developed cataracts and went blind (see that sweet blind stare in her eyes). In the end her going blind was harder on me than it was on her... she did not miss a beat. So what does this have to do with mediation....?
As Maddie was going blind I found a book about Living with a Blind Dog to help "me" cope. When you have a blind animal you often have the urge to help them..... and as in mediation, sometimes helping them is actually hindering them.
One of the best things I learned from the book was that you should NEVER pick up a blind dog and transport it to a new place and put it down.... you may see this as helping, like carrying your dog from the front yard into the house.... or from one room to another in the house. In reality it confuses the dog. Blind dogs have the ability to cognitively map their surroundings, so Maddie always knew where she was and what obstacles were ahead of her. By picking her up and moving her somewhere new and just putting her down.... it would confuse her. She would not know where she was or how she got there..... it would take her a minute to adjust and figure out what just happened. Instead of picking her up, it was best for her if I would stoop down and lead her to where we were headed, that way she learned for herself how to move through the world and when she ended up somewhere, she knew how she got there.
This is the same in mediation and one of the reasons I do not believe in giving suggestions or my opinion to the parties. The parties in a mediation need to know how they reach the resolution, if they come to one... and they need to know the obstacles if they are unable to reach resolution. As mediators we may feel the urge to be helpful and pick the parties up and drop them off at a resolution that we think makes sense. The problem.... when the resolution starts falling apart the parties are not sure how or why they came to it, so they are unable to problem solve keeping it together and they don't "own" it. So, next time you are tempted to pick up the parties and take them to the resolution room, remember my baby "Maddie".... and stoop down and encourage them to the path of resolution and let them find the way themselves.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
The Language of Energy
The Language of ENERGY
The white pooch is my boy "Frito"
Excerpts from Cesar’s Way by Cesar Millan
Thoughts for Mediators:
Thoughts for Mediators:
As a mediator, we have to take into account the language of Energy, our own energy and that of the participants in the mediation. There is no denying that in every mediation session, there is energy coming from every party. How you contain and move that energy as a mediator will have a great effect of the mediation session.
Things you should know about the "Language of Energy"
*There is a language that all animals speak, without even knowing it, including the human animal.
* All animals are born knowing this language instinctually. Even human beings are born fluent in this universal tongue, but we tend to forget it because we are trained from childhood to believe that words are the only way to communicate.
* The irony is, even though we don’t think we know the language anymore, we are actually speaking it all the time. Unknowingly, we are broadcasting in this tongue 24-7.
* Others can still understand us (humans and animals), they read us loud and clear, even when we’re unaware that we’re communicating.
Things you should know about the "Language of Energy"
*There is a language that all animals speak, without even knowing it, including the human animal.
* All animals are born knowing this language instinctually. Even human beings are born fluent in this universal tongue, but we tend to forget it because we are trained from childhood to believe that words are the only way to communicate.
* The irony is, even though we don’t think we know the language anymore, we are actually speaking it all the time. Unknowingly, we are broadcasting in this tongue 24-7.
* Others can still understand us (humans and animals), they read us loud and clear, even when we’re unaware that we’re communicating.
When things become emotional in a mediation session, the energy is flowing. No one can hide the energy they are experienceing when they become emotional. As a mediator, you have to be aware of this energy, even when the parties are trying to hide it..... it is still in the room.
Energy and Emotion:
* Energy is a language of emotion.
* All the animals around you, including other humans, are reading your energy every moment of the day.
* You can say anything that pops into your mind, but your energy cannot and does not lie.
Energy and Emotion:
* Energy is a language of emotion.
* All the animals around you, including other humans, are reading your energy every moment of the day.
* You can say anything that pops into your mind, but your energy cannot and does not lie.
The goal as a mediator is to master the skill of having "Calm-Assertive Energy." This energy will give the participants the sense of security they need to speak freely and know thay you are going to keep the space safe. It is also an energy that is not overwhelming and will not shut participants down.
The Calm-Assertive Personality:
The Calm-Assertive Personality:
*This is the Energy a medaitor wants to portray.
*A calm-assertive leader is relaxed but always confident that he or she is in control.
*A calm-assertive personality is relaxed, even-tempered, but undeniably powerful, and always in charge.
*A calm-assertive leader is relaxed but always confident that he or she is in control.
*A calm-assertive personality is relaxed, even-tempered, but undeniably powerful, and always in charge.
Cesar shares some observations he has made over the years in regard to who animals will follow as a leader and who humans will follow.... My conclusion... our pets should be allowed to vote :~)
Power of the Pack:
* Animals won’t follow soft or weak energy.
* Animals won’t follow compassionate energy or a lovable leader.
* Animals will not follow overly excited energy.
* Animals will not follow an unstable leader, humans will.
* Animals will follow only a stable leader.
Power of the Pack:
* Animals won’t follow soft or weak energy.
* Animals won’t follow compassionate energy or a lovable leader.
* Animals will not follow overly excited energy.
* Animals will not follow an unstable leader, humans will.
* Animals will follow only a stable leader.
To learn more about Energy and Calm-Assertive Energy check out Cesars books.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Spotting a Lack of Safety
How does a mediator create safety? The advice given to those in a "Cruical Conversation" by the authors of the book "Crucial Conversations" (check out the book at http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20?node=2&page=2) is to step out of the content of the conversation and take care of the conditions of the conversation, then move back to the content. Don’t stay stuck in what’s being said when things are not going well, step out of the conversation, fix what is wrong with the conditions of the conversation and then step back in. The belief is that conversations go downhill when one or both parties in the conversation are not feeling safe.
So how does a mediator create safety in a mediation session? First, you have to know how people may act when they are not feeling safe in a mediation session. That is one of the problems... People who are not feeling safe act out in negative ways like yelling, finger pointing, arguing, becoming defensive, or totally shutting down and going silent.
Sometimes a mediator may take these kinds of behaviors to mean that the party is not cooperative or not trying to resolve the issues in the mediation. But, before you make these assumptions, think to yourself.... is this about safety? Should the mediator intervene and enforce ground rules, challenge the behavior of the party? Or should the mediator think about ways to create safety, make sure the party is feeling heard, take the fear out of the room?
Next time you are in a situation when a party in the mediation appears to be uncooperative... step out of the content and before you intervene ask yourself... Is this about safety? or something else.....????
So how does a mediator create safety in a mediation session? First, you have to know how people may act when they are not feeling safe in a mediation session. That is one of the problems... People who are not feeling safe act out in negative ways like yelling, finger pointing, arguing, becoming defensive, or totally shutting down and going silent.
Sometimes a mediator may take these kinds of behaviors to mean that the party is not cooperative or not trying to resolve the issues in the mediation. But, before you make these assumptions, think to yourself.... is this about safety? Should the mediator intervene and enforce ground rules, challenge the behavior of the party? Or should the mediator think about ways to create safety, make sure the party is feeling heard, take the fear out of the room?
Next time you are in a situation when a party in the mediation appears to be uncooperative... step out of the content and before you intervene ask yourself... Is this about safety? or something else.....????
Friday, February 01, 2008
Utah Supreme Court Opinion on Mediation
February 1, 2008
An interesting case out of the Utah Supreme Court today....
The case was a civil case which involved a man being injured and he filed suit against the company for negligence. The case went to mediation and in the mediation a settlement was discussed, the mediator prepared a Memo of Understanding (MOU).. but the man who was injured would not sign it because there was a term in the MOU he did not agree with. The opposing side did not believe an agreement had been reached and the injured man took them to court to try to enforce the oral agreement. The trail court judge ordered the parties in the mediation to disclose what had happened in the mediation and if an agreement had been made. The attorney who was representing the company refused to disclose this information. The trail court found that she had to disclose the information and she appealed this decision to the Supreme Court to decide if she had to disclose the content of the mediation.
The Utah Supreme Court: First, upheld the confidential nature of mediation and ruled that the attorney did not have to and could not be compelled to disclose information from the mediation session... which is great news for the mediation world.
They second ruled that an agreement made in mediation is not enforceable unless and until it is put in writing and all involve parties sign it. We have been struggling with this issue in Utah for years.... the binding nature of a mediated agreement and if it matters if the parties sign it or not... This opinion has now answered that question.
It was a good day for the mediation community in Utah in that the Supreme Court supported the confidential nature of the process and outlined when an agreement reached in mediation is binding.
In short they found "we expressly recognize the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the mediation process and hold that Utah law requires agreements reached in mediation to be reduced to a writing and signed by all the parties to the agreement in order for the agreement to be enforceable by a court."
The decision was written by the Chief Justice Christine Durham.
To read the complete opinion go to
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Reese2020108.pdf
An interesting case out of the Utah Supreme Court today....
The case was a civil case which involved a man being injured and he filed suit against the company for negligence. The case went to mediation and in the mediation a settlement was discussed, the mediator prepared a Memo of Understanding (MOU).. but the man who was injured would not sign it because there was a term in the MOU he did not agree with. The opposing side did not believe an agreement had been reached and the injured man took them to court to try to enforce the oral agreement. The trail court judge ordered the parties in the mediation to disclose what had happened in the mediation and if an agreement had been made. The attorney who was representing the company refused to disclose this information. The trail court found that she had to disclose the information and she appealed this decision to the Supreme Court to decide if she had to disclose the content of the mediation.
The Utah Supreme Court: First, upheld the confidential nature of mediation and ruled that the attorney did not have to and could not be compelled to disclose information from the mediation session... which is great news for the mediation world.
They second ruled that an agreement made in mediation is not enforceable unless and until it is put in writing and all involve parties sign it. We have been struggling with this issue in Utah for years.... the binding nature of a mediated agreement and if it matters if the parties sign it or not... This opinion has now answered that question.
It was a good day for the mediation community in Utah in that the Supreme Court supported the confidential nature of the process and outlined when an agreement reached in mediation is binding.
In short they found "we expressly recognize the importance of maintaining confidentiality in the mediation process and hold that Utah law requires agreements reached in mediation to be reduced to a writing and signed by all the parties to the agreement in order for the agreement to be enforceable by a court."
The decision was written by the Chief Justice Christine Durham.
To read the complete opinion go to
http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Reese2020108.pdf
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Helping Someone Gain Insight
I listen to many Pod Casts. I recently listened to one in which David Rock, the author of a new book called "Quiet Leadership" is interviewed. In the book he talks about how leaders should be taught how to help their staff think, instead of just tell them what to do. He talks about ways in which we can "help people think better, not tell them what to do". This style of leadership is connected to mediation in that as mediators our job is to help people improve their thinking, not do the thinking for them.
David Rock outlines six steps to help some one improve their thinking..... Here is a short note on each...
1. The goal should be to help the other person "think about thinking." To step back from
the details and drama of a situation and help the person think better.
2. Listen for Potential. When you are working with someone who is struggling..... help them
to focus on what they are doing well, the positive.
3. Speak with Intent...Simplify. Help the person to feel safe and comfortable. Think about
what you are saying and how you are saying it. Keep it short and simple, do or say in 15
minutes what it could take 60 minutes to do or say. Focus on what is Useful versus what is
Interesting.
4. Dance toward Insight. Do not tell the other person what to do and then try to convince
them it is the right thing.... guide them on a process to find their own answer.
5. Create New Thinking. This is a great step which is hard to outline. You begin with the
persons current reality and explore different ways in which the conversation could proceed.
The trick is to watch for the topic which sparks the persons energy to rise... that is your sign
to move in that direction.
6. Follow-up. This is another great piece in the interview. To make a change you have to
focus your attention on that thought and/or intention everyday. When you focus the brain,
you build new neural connections....
This is a great book not only for leaders but for mediators. David Rock is a Life Coach and believes that people want to make decisions and they want to have new insights to their concerns and problems. Most leaders, and I would say most of us as humans, are trained or learn to tell people what to do, we are not good at helping them have insights.
If you want to listen to the full interview, it is only about 30 minutes long, here is a link
http://results.podbean.com/2007/02/18/landed-fm-radio-interview-with-david-rock-ceo/
Let me know what you think.......
If you are interested in the book check it out at my Amazon store, the link is
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20
David Rock outlines six steps to help some one improve their thinking..... Here is a short note on each...
1. The goal should be to help the other person "think about thinking." To step back from
the details and drama of a situation and help the person think better.
2. Listen for Potential. When you are working with someone who is struggling..... help them
to focus on what they are doing well, the positive.
3. Speak with Intent...Simplify. Help the person to feel safe and comfortable. Think about
what you are saying and how you are saying it. Keep it short and simple, do or say in 15
minutes what it could take 60 minutes to do or say. Focus on what is Useful versus what is
Interesting.
4. Dance toward Insight. Do not tell the other person what to do and then try to convince
them it is the right thing.... guide them on a process to find their own answer.
5. Create New Thinking. This is a great step which is hard to outline. You begin with the
persons current reality and explore different ways in which the conversation could proceed.
The trick is to watch for the topic which sparks the persons energy to rise... that is your sign
to move in that direction.
6. Follow-up. This is another great piece in the interview. To make a change you have to
focus your attention on that thought and/or intention everyday. When you focus the brain,
you build new neural connections....
This is a great book not only for leaders but for mediators. David Rock is a Life Coach and believes that people want to make decisions and they want to have new insights to their concerns and problems. Most leaders, and I would say most of us as humans, are trained or learn to tell people what to do, we are not good at helping them have insights.
If you want to listen to the full interview, it is only about 30 minutes long, here is a link
http://results.podbean.com/2007/02/18/landed-fm-radio-interview-with-david-rock-ceo/
Let me know what you think.......
If you are interested in the book check it out at my Amazon store, the link is
http://astore.amazon.com/rcblog-20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
