Blog moved to my website

Hi, My Blog has moved to my website. Please visit there:
Kathy Elton Consulting

Getting the "Whole" story

I find it interesting how a night at the Utah Symphony often teaches me something about the work I do in mediation. It happened again. On Saturday night I attended the much lauded final performance of Keith Lockhart as the Music Director for the Symphony. I bought the tickets at the first of the season with my regular season tickets and had not thought much about it since then. I have had a hectic month or so and so my connection to the newspaper, news, the world in general has been limited (this I like!) so I missed all of the stories about the performance scheduled for that night.

The perfomance was "Leonard Bernstein's Mass" and this meant nothing to me as we drove to the Symphony that night. When we arrived I took care of the personal essentials - a cookie and the restroom - and got to my seat about 10 minutes before the perfomance began. I looked at the program notes, but did not have my glasses and the print was too small, so I didn't read anything. As the program was beginning I leaned over to my partner, who had read some of the program notes, and asked what was this about. She responded "you should have read the program notes, I cannot explain it to you now."

I sat there for the next two hours, there was no intermission, totally bewildered by what I was seeing, hearing and feeling. You see, I love the Symphony and this night I did not. I won't bore with you all the details, I'll just say that at the end I could not understand why the Musical Director had picked this performance as his last and I was disappointed.

The next morning I was headed out on my daily walk with my dog and I was listening to podcasts. I came across one from the week before which was an interview with Keith Lockhart and others on the upcoming final performance. My first instinct was to hit delete... but I didn't and I am glad I didn't. Over the next 40 minutes I listened to an amazing explaination of what I had seen and experienced the night before. As I walked and listened I found a new appreciation for what I had witnessed and been a part of the evening before. All of a sudden something that was confusing and unpleasant became something moving and interesting.

So, how does this relate to mediation and conflict resolution? Many times when I am working with parties who are unable or unwilling to talk with one another, I find it frustrating that they each have compelling stories about their side of the issue, yet they are unwilling to sit in the same room and share them. I fear that as a mediator, when I carry those stories back and forth between the parties, that something important is lost. I am not able to carry the "Wholeness" of what the parties need to hear and experience with one another. They may leave my office feeling like I did when I walked out of Symphony Hall that night, confused and disappointed. I think one of the challenges for us as mediators is to find ways for the parties to have these experiences and see the other person in context, in their "whole" story and expereince.

There is one more part to this story. One other element the guests on the podcast talked about was the difference between listening to a performance on a recorded device versus being there in person. I also relate to this. I LOVE the Symphony, but I do not enjoy listening to classical music as a recording. There are some things that you have to experience, be in the middle of, to appreciate fully and for me classical music is like that. I love it when I am sitting in Symphony Hall and the music washes over and through me. I don't have that same reaction when it is on my home stereo or ipod.

There are things that people have to experience in context and in person for them to fully understand them. Often, conflict falls into this category. For conflict resolution to happen the parties have to understand the back story of the other and to listen to the experience of the other in person. They need to allow the story and experience of the other to "wash" over and through them. It is my experience that when this can happen in a mediation, transformation begins.

Mediation with Gay and Lesbian Couples; It Is Not Straight Forward -- Click for full article --

This is an article recently published in ACResolution Magazine, Winter 2009 ACRnet.org

By Kathy Elton

A couple of years ago, my partner and I spent the weekend with a male friend who happens to be a mediator. His wife was unable to join us, so it was just the three of us. One night we stayed up late and somehow my partner and I ended up telling him the details of each of our past relationships.

The next morning our friend brought up the discus-sion and asked if we were OK. The question was unexpected because there was no reason, in our minds, not to be OK. He went on to share that the topic of our past relationships and the way in which we talked about those relationships in front of one another had made him uncomfortable. He said that if he or his wife were to discuss a past relationship in front of the other, it would create negative tension between them. He could not imagine that we did not react in a similar way.

That experience has stayed with me and when I came across research that outlined the similarities and differences between same-sex and cross-sex couples I was intrigued. In this article, I will review some of the research on same-sex couples in conflict and make suggestions for mediators based on my own experience that reinforces the research.

Limited research
When you think about same-sex relationships what comes to your mind? Some of the common myths about same-sex relationships are:
· Homosexuals are unhappy individuals who are unsuccessful in developing enduring

relationships;
· Gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to cross-sex relationships;
· Gay and lesbian relationships are less satisfying than cross- sex relationships, more prone to

discord, and people in gay and lesbian relationships are "less in love";
· Homosexuals arc socially isolated and lacking in social sup­port.

The research on same-sex relationships is sparse, but those studies that have looked at these relationships have found that same-sex couples are comparable to cross-sex couples on measures of relationship satisfaction and quality. A 1987 study by L.A. Kurdek and J. P. Schmitt tided "Partner Homogamy in Married, Heterosexual Cohabiting, Gay, and Lesbian Couples" published in the Journal ofSew Research found that same-sex and cross-sex couples who are matched on age and other relevant characteristics do not usually differ in levels of love and satisfaction. Kurdek and Schmitt's studies on this topic are all based on self-report questionnaires. The bottom line is: Same-sex couples are not any more prone to relationship dis­satisfaction and difficulties than are cross-sex couples.

So, how do same-sex and cross-sex relationships differ?

Some of the most recent research (2003) on same-sex relation­ships was conducted by Dr. John Gottman of the University of Washington and Dr. Robert Levenson of the University of California at Berkeley. In a 12 year study, they evaluated 42 same-sex couples (21 gay and 21 lesbian) all of whom were cohabitating and in a committed relationship of at least two years. These couples were compared to 42 cross-sex couples who had been married for at least two years and whose reports of satisfaction in the relationship were roughly equivalent to
the same-sex couples. In a 2001 article in the Los Angeles Times, reporter Kathleen Kelleher summarized the then unpublished results of the Gortman/Levenson study:
· 20 percent of same-sex couples had broken up at the end of the 12 years, compared to 38

percent of the heterosexual couples.
· Same-sex couples use fewer controlling, hostile emotional tactics during arguments.

According to Gottman, generally, power-sharing and fairness are more prevalent among

same- sex couples than among cross-sex couples.
· In a fight, same-sex couples take negative statements less per­sonally than do cross-sex

couples. "A gay or lesbian person can say something negative in a fight and a partner is much

less likely to be defensive than those in a cross-sex partner­ship," Gottman said.
· Unhappy same-sex couples are better able to cairn down while in a fight than cross-sex

couples. For some reason, cross-sex couples become more physically agitated during a fight

than same-sex couples. The upshot, Gottman said, "is same-sex couples appear better able to

soothe each other during conflicts or in the aftermath of a fight."
· In a fight, lesbians show more anger, humor, excitement and interest than conflicting gay men.

Gottman speculates that this may be the result of two women in a relationship who have been

raised in a society where emoting is more accept­able for women than men.
· Gay men need to be especially careful to avoid negativity in conflict. If the initiator of conflict in

a gay relationship becomes too negative, his partner may not able to de-escalate the conflict as

well as lesbian or cross-sex couples.

Given the research, mediators working with same-sex couples should consider the following:

Understand your own comfort level with high emotion
I believe that all mediators should be aware of their own com­fort level in regard to conflict so they do not intervene because of their own discomfort. We, as mediators, should only inter­vene when the conversation becomes unproductive.

When working with lesbians, mediators may experience a higher level of emotion than they experience when working with gay men or cross-sex couples. My partner and I tend to express our emotions with each other in front of our family members on a regular basis. At times when we are having a disagreement with one another and I feel like we are just getting into a good discussion, a family member (often my father or my partner's mother) will say something that is meant to calm us. During those moments, we do nor need to be calmed down and, in fact, we are both feeling very engaged and connected to one another. However, the level of emotion we are willing to express makes others uncomfortable. Is the discomfort others experience just a generic response to any emotionally laden situation? It could be, but I think it has to do with both of us being women. I also think it can be related to Gottman's speculation that it is more accepted in society for women to emote. With a lesbian couple you get double the emotion. In the family context I do not mind being "shut down" because of someone's discomfort with the level of emo­tion, but if I were a participant in a mediation talking about something important and a mediator intervened, it would frustrate me. Mediators need to be aware of the possibility of this higher level of emotion and should be prepared to allow the lesbian couple to engage in a way that is comfortable to them. Mediators need to be careful not to intervene because of their own discomfort when working with lesbian couples; the last thing you want to do is to shut them down, because that may increase their level of stress and frustration and derail the mediation process.

Conversely, when working with gay men, a mediator needs to be sensitive to the level of negativity exchanged between the parties. If the level of negativity becomes too high, the relationship can be further damaged. 1 still advocate for keeping my gay clients in the same room and using caucus sparingly. In instances where I would likely not intervene
with cross-sex or lesbian couples, I may intervene with gay couples, just to make sure the relationship is not negatively impacted while the couple is in the mediation process. In instances when I do intervene, I usually reveal my rationale to the parties so they do not assume I am being too controlling of the process. Once they understand the reason for the intervention, they often self-regulate or, at least, understand why I am breaking in.

The use of caucus
The use of caucusing should be limited when working with gay and lesbian couples. If you are a mediator who uses caucuses as a regular part of your mediation process, you may want to re-think this approach when working with same-sex couples. The Gottman/Levenson research basically concluded that gays and lesbians display less belligerency, domination and fear with each other than cross-sex couples. The research also found that gays and lesbians who exhibit more tension during disagreements are actually more satisfied with their relation­ships than those who remain unruffled. When working with cross-sex couples, we as mediators know that the higher the level of tension, the more trouble the relationship is in, so we may instinctively separate the parties. This can be counter­productive when working with a same-sex couple, unless the caucus is held to lessen the damage between two men.

Respect the parties and the relationship
Finally, and most importantly, as a mediator you must respect the parties and the quality of their relationship. I recommend that mediators who believe in the old myths about gay and les­bian relationships decline such cases, instead referring the cases to a mediator who understands and uses the unique techniques associated with mediating gay and lesbian relationships. In
any type of conflict, gay and lesbian clients need and deserve the same support and respect from the mediator that would automatically be afforded a cross-sex couple.

Kathy Elton has more than 12 years experience as a mediator in many different dispute areas. She is the owner of Kathy Elton Consulting in Murray Utah and offers mediation, conflict coaching and training.

Prop 8

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

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

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…

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