Book review - Reconciling One and All by Brian Castle

Reconciling One and All is a worthy contribution to the library of Conflict and Mediation books which might pass under many readers' radars given its Christian bearing. That would be unfortunate as it has much to offer.

The book is a slim tome, at about 110 pages, but is packed with ideas and provocations, many of which, in a style similar to De Bono, are not fully explored but left for the reader to develop further.

The book breaks down this thing called reconciliation into 5 provocations or parts, namely;

Memory
Victimhood
Forgiveness
Reaching out to the other; and
God's gift to the world

Memory explores, not hanging onto past grievances, but remembering "rightly" in such a fashion as will enable reconciliation to take place. It goes on to explore the need to let go or lay aside grievances.

"This laying aside does not underestimate the wrong, it is not a repression and it is not an escape. Rather it takes seriously what has happened in the past and shows a willingness, when the time is ripe, to move into the future towards reconciliation. This can only happen when we have an active control of the memory and decide the shape of remembering which, in itself, is a sign that we control the memory rather than the memory controlling us"

Chapter 2, called "Victimhood... or not" starts with a fascinating argument and one that was new to me, namely the idea that Jesus Christ is frequently portrayed as victim within art and other representations. That is a nonesense when considered against the Gospel but is remarkably prevalent. Cue long faces and sombre gatherings all round!

Brian Castle goes on to explore how the psalm writers when faced with challenges and grievances, did not retreat internally to wallow and lick their wounds. Instead they stretched "Out beyond themselves, to God, to prevent themselves from being overwhelmed by what opposes them" - a fascinating view on the need for the individual to go beyond themselves and the natural, tempting sense of victimhood, to reach out and endeavour to create a resolution.
The very act of resolution is seen as combatting the overbearing deluge of the trials that the participants may be facing. I can see this within the Collaborative Law work which I do. The client and their spouse are emboldened in facing up to the end of a marriage by participating within its resolution, instead of absolving that role entirely to the Judges and Lawyers. When it works, it is a remarkable thing to see.

Chapter 3 deals with forgiveness and joins the mediator and individual with the challenges that forgiveness presents. Who's forgiveness is it? What is the difference between forgiveness and mercy? We touch upon the challenge that we are often presented with when trying to broach forgiveness with clients or other people around us:

"In many ways it is disresectful for those who have not had to undergo such horrors even to raise the question of forgiveness..." How often are we presented with the retort "What would you know, you weren't there!" or "You have no idea how I am feeling..."

Brian Castle in turn looks to "Exclusion and Embrace" by Miroslav Volf and how Volf deals with the parable of the all-loving father - incorrectly referred to, Castle says, as the parable of the prodigal son.

The father embraces his son upon his return even before there has been any remorse or confession. "For the father the fact that he was his son was more significant in his relationship with him than what he had done. Of course the moral activity of the younger son is not irrelevant, but it is not as important as the father's relationship with his son."

"Reaching out to the other" is the theme of the fourth paragraph and this, for me, is the most potent section. The idea is that we should acknowledge and embrace the differences between us.
The challenge is that if we do so, we risk transformation, change, maybe even, but whisper it, Growth. The very title of this blog, Embracing Conflict, belies where I feel on this issue. I do believe that we need to be able to step into those differences, competently and respectfully, and be curious as to how those differences between us map out. We need a dialogue that engages, not dehumanizes or pushes away.

The final chapter, God's gift to the world, draws upon the Gospel and demonstrates how this thing called Reconciliation is perhaps the central theme of the Bible, from the tumultuous opening book of Genesis which it is revealed is packed with separation, suffering and subsequent reconciliation, through to Paul's letters including those to the Corinthians.

I would expect the last chapter to provide the greatest challenge for non-Christian readers, but I sincerely hope that his book will be read and debated more widely. There is a great deal of sense contained within its few pages which I hope will stimulate the reader as much as it has me.
The Christian perspective helps to make sense and contextualise this work for Christians. For non-Christians I would hope that Brian Castle's tone is sensitive enough to ensure that it is not over-bearing but that it can serve as a framing for the discussions that follow.

For now, I'm off to find a copy of Miroslav Volf!

The Happy Workplace

Many marriages break down not because of an excess of conflict, but because of an absence of explicit conflict.

Arguments are banished or avoided. If we allow ourselves to argue, then we are admitting, we believe, that our relationship is breaking down. We are no longer “In love.” Arguing is seen as a loss of intimacy.

The result is that grievances and irritations are not discussed. Resentment grows.

Organisations are the same.

They become afraid of raising contentious issues because we confuse having an argument, or a debate, with falling out. We like to believe that our relationships with our colleagues, staff, volunteers, trustees, are harmonious, and that if we argue then we are jeopardising that harmony.

Or we fear for ourselves. What will happen if put my head above the parapet? Will I be seen as being awkward, or a trouble-maker, or obstructive?

What reaction will I provoke amongst other members of the relevant group?

What if I’m wrong? Will I be humiliated?

The result is that difficult issues are not addressed. Instead, initiatives are not pushed forward, or are allowed to proceed even though one or more members may have identified inherent problems or flaws.

All organisations have a rich mine of opinions, viewpoints and ideas. We need to make it safe for individuals to speak out. We need to encourage dissent so that ideas can be tested or aired in the first place.

Arguments and debate should not be seen as the end of a working or social relationship. Instead, competent, responsible debate can be seen as an indication that the relationship is adequately strong and mature so as to be able to take the strain of a debate and survive intact.

Mogers Guide to Collaborative Law - a trial run at web video.

I have prepared a very rudimentary video and narrative explaining something about the collaborative law process and how it can help to maximise communication and trust in family law cases.

Here it is.



Let me know your thoughts as I will be presenting to Mogers Solicitors on Twitter, YouTube and web 2.0 stuff over the coming weeks. I appreciate the resolution is a bit scrappy and the lighting could be better. I am toying with the idea of various camera rigs for future attempts.

Many thanks

Neil

Red File - A new choice for separating couples

I have posted, below, a draft press release for the Red File system that I have been creating for Mogers Solicitors in Bath.

Please do pitch in with comments or suggestions. If you would like more details on how the scheme is comprised then let me know with a request in the comments, or by messaging at www.twitter.com/neildenny

New Choice for Separating Couples

Many married couples, having made the difficult decision to separate, are finding that they are unable to do so. For some this will be because of the lack of lending or reducing equity in their homes.

For others it is because of the cost of legal fees themselves.

Either way this can result in couples having to remain locked in a marriage which neither of them wants, leading to frustration and resentment.

One Bath firm have created a new legal service to help such couples.

“We are providing a service to enable people to file and complete their own divorces and financial matters while still offering support and guidance.” explains Neil Denny, family solicitor with Mogers on Queen Square, Bath.

“By working alongside people instead of taking over the full conduct of their case, we can help people to move matters forward in a way which is affordable and easier to manage.”

Neil Denny believes that new services such as these are the future for the legal profession. “The market will increasingly expect solicitors to be more flexible in how they work for their clients. They will want to see solicitors recognising the fact that clients are often willing and able to do some of the work themselves.”

The Red File assisted legal services model works on the basis that clients will choose and only pay a small fixed fee for the sections of their divorce and financial case that they want help with.

“The benefit is that people can budget not only for how much their case will cost, but they can also timetable for when each part needs to be paid.”

“We are excited to be leading the debate on the future of providing legal services with this product. We look forward to making the system available in other areas of law to include probate, children law matters and small claims litigation.”

Contact Neil Denny for more information on 01225 750000.

The problem with dispute resolution...

It is easy, within dispute resolution, to imagine that the movement is beyond criticism.

This is one of the topics addressed in the excellent book "Beyond Neutrality" by Bernard Mayer.

Here is another reminder reported in the Law Society Gazette a couple of weeks ago. Dame Hazel Genn, professor of socio-legal studies at University College London, is quoted as saying that mediation "Is not about just settlement" Instead, she asserts, "It is just about settlement."

There are various schools of socio-political criticism of dispute resolution suggesting that ADR processes perpetuate power imbalances and abuses, keep resolved issues out of the body of publicly decided cases and precedents, and the critique levied here that mediation and ADR processes somehow sidestep or marginalise this thing called Justice.

The article, written by Joshua Rozenburg is stridently put and does not seem to hold too much sympathy with Dame Hazel Genn's position. It is worth noting however that the lectures in which her critique was presented are to be published later in Spring.

It will be interesting to read the whole speech to ensure that her reported comments are in context and also to hear more about the objections to dispute resolution. As Bill Gates is reported to have once said; "Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning."

Now there’s passive aggressive for you.

Had a priceless example yesterday of dysfunctional intrafamily communication.

You know how it is. The family are around, doing that “Family time together” thing. Everyone is being ever so ever so. No-one wants to be criticised. Everyone wants to be loved.

So Gramps asks “Can I have the news on at ten past six, please?”

“Of course,” I say, “What time is it now?”

“Ten past six”

Arrrgh! Just ask me to turn the TV on!

What would he have done if I hadn’t asked the time?

In asking the time, was I playing into his game? Was I being played?

Resentment follows.

What passive aggressive exchanges have you been tickled by this Christmas?

Deliverance and the Duelling Banjoes

The famous duelling banjos scene in Deliverance can be seen as a metaphor for conflict communications.

In John Boorman’s 1972 film, Deliverance, one of the central characters, Drew, plays music with a complete stranger, a seemingly mute boy. The city professional and the rural adolescent are able to create a whole improvised song between them.

The music develops by a process of answer and call. One of them plays a riff, or a short section of music, which is then followed by the other. They react to one another responding to and developing upon the riff they have just heard. By doing so they produce this amazing music in a memorable scene that is part of cinema folklore.

It represents a rare moment of optimism in what is an otherwise unbearably dark, oppressive film.

In the process of exchanging these riffs the protagonists are effectively collaborating. They are communicating. We can see their riffs as an analogy for talking. The riffs work where the spoken word does not. Drew and the Banjo boy clearly develop and enjoy a relationship while they are playing.

All of this is despite an atmosphere of intense mistrust and power imbalances. The scene starts as one of conflict. The city professionals have got lost on their way to the river where they are hoping to enjoy a canoeing expedition. They come across a local community who are referred to as “rednecks”. The locals suspect the visitors of being businessmen intent on damning the river, flooding the valley and evicting them from their homes.

The scene bristles as Burt Reynolds and his colleagues swagger about making demands for assistance ("I don't think you understand...). The presumed economic, cultural and intellectual dominance is all theirs. This is demonstrated when Bobby, another of the touring slickers, is heard to mutter “Talk about genetic deficiencies.” with regard to the banjo playing adolescent. Another example, this time of economic dominance is seen when, a couple of minutes later, Bobby suggests the relationship between the two musicians can be reduced to Drew giving the banjo player “a couple of bucks”.

There is no respect or trust between the two camps.

It is no surprise therefore that communication is not working. The visitors’ requests for help sound like peremptory demands and only seem to aggravate and alienate. When Bobby’s offensive comment about “genetic deficiencies” is overheard by one of the locals it is met with the response “Who’s picking the banjo here?”.

In the immediate context of the scene this is an observation that the local boy is holding his own in the transactions with the guitar playing Drew. Over the rest of the film though it becomes a potent foretelling as the local community wrestles back control and power in quite awful ways.

Throughout all of this however a unique rapport and relationship is building.

Slowly at first, Drew and the boy playing the banjo create a platform of mutual understanding and respect. The exchanges are brief, tentative, guarded.

The momentum builds. Both players start to give a little more and relax. There is then an explicit recognition that they are safe to continue; Drew exclaims “Come on, I’m with you!”, and the piece and scene takes off. There is a meeting of minds and cultures which is suddenly optimistic, and shown to be highly contagious.

Towards the end, Drew stalls in his guitar playing dazzled by the banjo player’s virtuosity and the giddy euphoria they have created between them. He gasps out “I’m lost!” He is safe to show this failing, this lack of understanding, or guitar playing ability on his part because they have established a framework within which to communicate and build a relationship. It is a relationship where each of the players are recognised as contributing to the dialogue.

The music ends with drew catching up and co-performing once again to bring the tune to a natural and satisfying conclusion.

UPDATE 3rd June 2014
Wow.  I had not realised that this article I wrote back in 2008 was still getting attention.  It is and lots of it. If you are reading this and want to catch up then please pop along to www.neildenny.com where you can find me and more of my conflict resolution work and writing.  Go well and do good work.

What Happens When We Argue TOO Well?

I am fascinated by how conflict plays out. It is full of curious ironies, dynamics and tricks.

Consider this excerpt from the BBC's Evan Davis's blog

"But it was one of those interesting arguments where - despite the other person winning - you remain somewhat unconvinced of their case. He argued it just too well.. I rather came to think he could win any argument he made. "

What a predicament to face. If we argue "Too well" we end up self defeating.

There is a recent family law case where this has been highlighted. In it a wife was arguing that her husband had hidden assets.

She argued that very well. She argued it too well.

She argued it so well that the judge, in the first instance, believed her unproven allegations and made an order against her husband accordingly.

The problem was that the argument was unsustainable on appeal, which she lost.

The awful irony is that she will have perceived she had succeeded in her case, but then faced another 2 years of litigation while the aftermath, of her own very successful efforts, were unravelled.

So, what are we to do?

We need to be on our guard and need to check our arguments. Are we creating a version of events simply to fit our perception? Stephen Covey would call this a paradigm view, no doubt. Are we being seduced by conflict, anger or indignation into seeing a quite artificial view.

There is another example of this very issue breaking as I write, with another BBC story. The former accused killer of Jillian Dando - Barry George - has been found innocent upon appeal. The prosecution case was criticised as follows;

""The only reason that the prosecution say that this is the work of the local loner, the local nutter, the man with these serious psychological problems, is because that is the man they arrested.

"But if you look at the facts of the case they will give you a very different story."

Facts, dear boy, facts.

In the aforementioned family law case, the appeal judgment explained that the problem with the original hearing and the wife's case is that it was not based on "Evidence but simply on a different belief asserted on behalf" of the wife. The extent to which the wife had proved her case was said to be "No more than `I assume that'"

My fuller article on the family law case can be found on my firm's website here.

Heather Mills and the things we say and do in conflict

On Friday 25th April 2008 I presented to a group of businessmen and women. We took a slightly different angle on the recent Mills and McCartney divorce and what we can all learn from the conflict led behaviours seen in that case.


The press coverage that Heather Mills has received following her divorce from Paul McCartney has been most unattractive.

Within our workshop we took a quick show of hands to gauge support for her.

I am pleased to say we had a couple of supporters for Ms Mills, but by far the majority were happy to denounce her. This is in keeping with the press coverage to date.

I shall be referring to the Judge's comments throughout this workshop, to see what we can learn from them.

Firstly let us look at how the Judge perceived Ms Mills and her conduct.

"She is a less than impressive witness."
"I cannot accept her case."
"Wholly exaggerated"

But for all of that, the Judge also recognised that Ms Mills is "A kindly person and is devoted to her charitable causes."

I want to explore the idea that Ms Mills is not as she has been portrayed - if she was then surely it is inconceivable that Paul McCartney would have married her - but rather that she is an individual who has fallen into quite typical conflict led patterns of behaviour.

I will look at 3 specific examples of conflict behaviours.

"To some extent she is her own worst enemy." Justice Bennett

How many of us, when reading these words, can hear the words of our parents or teachers ringing in our ears.

We are all capable of letting ourselves down and we are particularly at risk when we are in conflict situations. Kenneth Cloke wrote in his book, "Mediating Dangerously" that we get seduced by conflict.

There is a temptation to act in conflict driven ways, not least because we perceive that conflict feels so good. It is the "Yeah! That told them!" feeling.

When we are seduced by conflict we act in accordance with conflict's own agenda and not in keeping with our own values or how we would like to see ourselves acting. What was that quote about "Give a speech in anger and give the best speech you'll ever regret?"

Radiohead sang "You do it to yourself, you do, and that's what really hurts" and they were right.

Too often we think we are blaming the other person. We think we are proving that the other person is to blame to whoever might be listening. But all we are doing is letting ourselves down and shooting ourselves in the foot.

Because we lose control in the face of conflict we end up inflicting damage on ourselves. We do it to ourselves and we become our own worst enemies.

Think of a conflict situation you have had to face where you acted rashly and scored an own goal.

"She cannot have done herself any good... by her outbursts in her TV interviews." Justice Bennett

These TV interviews, see below, drew a great deal of criticism.

The public were largely unaminous in their views that these were a bad idea poorly handled.

But, again, was Ms Mills doing anything that you or I would not have done?

Think about it. Think about when you got home after an argument at the office, or having been cut up by another driver on the way home.

What do we do?

We tell our partners about it. Maybe we retell the story later on at the bar with friends, or on the phone to our parents or colleagues.

What exactly are we doing that for?

I suggest we do it to seek affirmation that we were not in the wrong.

"I mean, I was right, wasn't I?"

or

"Can you believe what they said today?"

When we retell these conflict stories we are looking to recruit supporters to our version of events so that we can be comforted that we did not make the mistake. It is a perfectly natural behaviour.

I think the only difference with Ms Mills is that she was given a much broader platform, namely live GMTV, from which to retell her story from her perspective.

Would we, if we were so inflamed by conflict, have been able to resist such an opportunity to set the story straight, as we saw it?

There is something else going on within these TV interviews and it is this.

Ms Mills is seen maximising her virtues and denouncing other peoples motives.

Again this is something we all do.

If I am late then I justify it my behaviour. there will be any number of explanations. If someone I am meeting is late, then I do not justify it and instead rush to condemn it.

Conflict tricks us into denigrating the other person and all that they say or do.

Many divorce clients when receiving a good, even generous settlement proposal from their estranged spouse, reject it immediately.

"Oh, there must be something in it for them."

We see a terrible conflict irony that the more generous the proposal, the greater the mistrust.

This in part can explained by Karpman's Drama Triangle which I shall now look at.

"The wife's campaign... portraying herself as the victim and he as the monster" Justice Bennett

Karpman created the concept of the Drama triangle in the 1960's. It relates to Transactional Analysis models of behaviour.

It suggests that when we are in conflict we occupy one of the three corners of the triangle. They are labelled Victim, Villain and Rescuer.

Bizarrely, although none of us would ever admit to wanting to be the victim, we often rush to claim that very role for ourselves.

"Can you believe what they told me?/did to me?"

When we recount those conflict stories discussed above, how often do we portray ourselves as the victim.

The problem is that every victim needs a villain. Even if we do not name the perpetrator as a villain, it is implied that they must be villainous. And you better believe that they will know that, or at least "Feel" it.

And so we see Ms. Mills proclaiming her victim status live on GMTV. But her motive is that of the rescuer. She is seen to intervene into her own victimhood and attempt to rescue herself. She asserts that she is speaking out on live TV to set the record straight.

Very often the victim will have had enough and take such "rescuing" actions. The problem is though that she was then roundly condemned as the villain of the piece by having been perceived as attacking her spouse.

Watch out also for the priceless assertion that she is/was trying to "Protect" Paul McCartney.

Again, she is the rescuer. Here, she portrays Paul McCartney as the victim - powerless - at the mercy of shadowy unidentified villains.

Her outburst is not an attack, she would say. It is a virtuous action.

So look out for the drama triangle at play in your life, in your debates at work and relationships at home and in the community.

Watch out for instances where you are retelling a conflict story looking for recruits to join your side of the argument.

And above all, watch out lest you get suckered into carrying out conflict led behaviours rather than adopting a smarter approach to conflict resolution.

You'll be shocked to see that Ms Mills isn't all that different to you and I after all. It is just a question of scale.

It only takes one to tango

When I present on Conversational Riffs, a question that repeatedly comes up is how can these methods be of any use if the other person is determined to be difficult.

This is a question of “setting the stage” – how are we going to resolve this dispute? It is assumed that it takes two to tango in dispute resolution scenarios. If the other person doesn’t play ball, then our best efforts are all in vain.

I invite the questioner to turn the situation around.

Why would we allow the aggressive, or difficult party, to set the stage on their preferred terms?

Why should that process take priority over our own? If we give up in our efforts to create a positive dialogue then we are endorsing the other parties approach. We are saying “Our approach is not good enough in this situation. Your approach is right and we will commit to play, argue or fight by your rules.” We don’t want to do that, do we?

That only addresses the issue on one level. Implementing, and getting our approach to stick is another issue.

To be successful in setting the stage, we have to create that space within the dialogue which will draw in the other party. We need to anticipate what motivates the other party to resist and then meet, accommodate or resolve those concerns.

Through our own approach and careful communication we can create a conversation that will carry our colleagues or partners with us.

That is the whole notion of Conversational Riffs. The riff I play in an improvised piece of music will lead naturally onto the next passage. In conversation, the same thing applies. If I can pull out a conversational riff from my repertoire, I can influence how that conversation will progress.

My partner within the debate, argument or whatever, begins to improvise with me in creating a new meaningful, spontaneous dialogue.

The adversarial principle in society - Politics and the media

The title above is the subject of a debate being presented by CEDR and others on 11th September. I am looking forward to it very much as it is an area that I am increasingly troubled by.

A few weeks ago, I read about Cameron promising "Bareknuckle fights" over the NHS. That will help the A+E wards, then. Bareknuckle fights?

Peter Haine, for the other team, had been at it ahead of the Welsh Assembly election last year, same bareknuckle metaphor.

This weekend, we have the ever-macho William Hague making threats to Gordon Brown that he would be "In for the fight of his life" once any election campaign began.

What is it with this ridiculous posturing, this violent, threatening, pugilistic rhetoric? It is supposed, no doubt, to rouse the party faithful and show strong, fearless leadership. It comes across, however, as nothing more than playground taunting.

It is embarrassing and could well be contributing to the public disaffection with politics generally. There needs to be a new dialogue between our parties and the electorate, one that respects the electorates intellect rather than assuming that they can be whipped into a frenzy with this conflict laden, ugly, playground banality.

All in all, I'm looking forward to the seminar. Here's hoping it is the start of a new conversation.

Great discussion on Linkedin

Have a look here for a great discussion on "The gratuitous insult - How do you respond?"

The author raises a situation where he asks for an explanation and gets the surprising response "“If you don't understand what I mean, then that is probably your problem.”

Enough to take anyone aback.

The question has elicited 90+ responses so far with differing approaches.

Many people say ignore it, or walk away. Some look at reframing or feedback, others would adopt a more directly challenging stance.

More than one respondent suggests a hug.

My response is in the mid nineties... and is set out below




My Conversational Riffs material approaches any dialogue like a blues or jazz guitar solo. Sure, we can stick with the same old easy riffs we all know so well, the tedium of attack, defend and counter attack. That is the Status Quo and it neither interests us, nor serves us very well.

Instead, what we need is a whole repertoire of tiny riffs which we can improvise at any time to take conversations in whole new directions.

So, your colleague makes this comment - probably a defensive comment on his part following a mis-perception that you have just attacked his communication skills - and then counter attacks you in such spectacular fashion.

You can respond as expected above or throw in a new riff. Change direction. Improvise. Create a new dialogue. Try an encouragement, acknowledgment, agreement or invitation riff.. any of these will break the cycle that this conversation looks as though it is about to embark upon. Who knows what meaning and understanding you might create!

Holidays and a link before I go

That's it, I'm off work for a couple of weeks annual leave so it'll be quiet here for a while. I look forward to sharing more ideas and really making some progress with those other career plans when I get back mid August.

In the meantime here's an interesting post on Deloittes blog site that I thought presented some interesting personal dilemnas.

The relationship / time matrix

I was discussing matters with a colleague last week who could be called a "Distance service provider" - that is to say that their services were provided over the internet, mail, telephone, but not directly face to face.

This organisation were surprised at just how much conflict they had to deal with between the service provider and the consumer.

We had an interesting chat about an idea that occured to me there and then, namely the relationship / time matrix.

We explored whether the problem might be one of low relationship combined with long time delays between communications. Why should that provide a problem?

We came onto narrative theory. Within any given transaction there will be markers.

I placed my order on this date. I enquired by phone on this date and then the goods arrived on this date.

The problem is that the gaps between those recorded incidents then get filled with supposition as each party assumes what has been happening and what the other party has intended.

Within this particular industry, the relationship between provider and consumer of the service was low. This could have an impact given that it reduced understanding between the parties, leaving larger gaps to fill in with suppositions. Furthermore if the relationship had not been developed then there was nothing to preserve there through ensuring that we communicated carefully.

We then explored whether that low relationship was then compounded by the time between each response or element within the communication.

Whenever one party or the other raised a point, typically through correspondence, then there was a time delay. That creates more space to fill with second guessing.

We kicked about looking at a way of possibly reducing such conflict by enhancing the relationship to develop better understanding between provider and consumer, and also challenging the means of communication, systems and processes to ensure that such issues were handled more promptly.

It has led to me thinking, however, how such a matrix would map out. As relationship increases then we would presumably have some more lassitude on time. Indeed, we need to build in time if relationships are to be developed. But there will come a point on that time curve where longer time - too much time - will start to affect the relationship itself.

There you have it. A most nebulous of nebulous thoughts. I'll let you know of further developments on it. Is anyone else working on similar ideas?

Oh to be in Kalamazoo!

Oh to be in Kalamazoo. Why? Well to have an address like that would be enough. Just saying the word is beautiful. It bounces off the tongue. Even typing it has its own unique rhythm. Try it for yourself.

Kalamazoo.

But look at what insight into Kalamazoo life my Google alerts gave me this morning.

Not only have they got Richard's Magic Accordian Show scheduled for 7pm TONIGHT but they have a mediation drop in service at the Kalamazoo library. Now that is the first time I have seen one of those.

Count me as interested. Does anyone have experience of mediation drop in surgeries? I know that in my legal profession, especially in family law, that the free first half hour is prevalent, although it is not something I offer. If you put on a half hour free session then your client is going to be time wary. If they are watching the watch then they aren't able to relax into their story and I am only going to get the most cursory explanation of where their relationship has got to. At the very time that I need to understand them and develop trust and rapport, I restrict the likelihood of doing so because of time pressure.

I offer a fixed fee at a nominal charge but the meeting can take as long as it takes - normally around 90 minutes. You can see the client talk themselves through their initial anxiety, and time concerns, and there comes a stage where they visibly relax. There is a realisation that they can take their time and hopefully ensure that they are fully heard.

That in turn helps me to advise in a way that I hope might be more in keeping with their values and in response to what they have told me their position is.

How, I wonder, can the Kalamazoo mediation surgery settle the participants and get to an adequate level of communication working in the time available? If it works then it could be expanded upon. Imagine, you could have conflict kiosks everywhere. If people cannot agree on something they just pop into their neighbourhood Conflict Corner, settle into their booths, mediate, settle and move on with their day.

On closer examination I learn that Kalamazoo has its own website.

Here it proudly proclaims its status as a "Cool city" - which seems to be trying a bit too hard. Of much more interest though is the story of the Kalamazoo Promise which is a much more interesting matter altogether and something I'm going to have to look into. Real altruism. Real vision. A much more interesting story indeed.

Good morning Kalamazoo! We love you!

Conflict and social networking

Here's an invitation. Have a look at this networking site for people working in or having an interest in conflict resolution or peace work generally. There is some good debate starting to warm up over there. The site seems to be finding it's feet and I am benefiting from some interesting connections that are likely to lead to future collaborations.

My page can be found here. Please leave a comment there and introduce yourself.

The membership is predominantly people working in the field in conflict areas, as opposed to those in training or the corporate aspects of conflict. However there is a broad range of opinion, emphasis, experience and origin. A real hotbed of conflict thinking and application. Join in!

Airport queues and dispute resolution using conversational riffs

Have you ever been spear fishing? I had the opportunity to try it yesterday and it was remarkable. I caught a sea bass weighing about a kilo. Not bad for a man with a fish phobia. There was some healing going on right there. Albeit not for the fish.

Anyway I digress.

As we drove down to Studland Bay I was talking with a great chap called Lee. He travels frequently between the UK and America. We were discussing conflict and how people react to it.

He recounted an incident at an American airport. His flight was lost - whether cancelled, overbooked or whatever. He was in a queue of understandably angry people trying to get more information.

He got to the front of the queue and just had this one other passenger in front of him who proceeded to give the clerk an insight into his frustration.

Not surprisingly he was told there was nothing that could be done. He would need to come back the following day to continue his flight. Apologies on behalf of the airline and so on. He was frustrated when he started, he was angry when he spoke to the clerk, and he was still frustrated when he finished.

Lee steps up, with the same frustrations as the guy in front but tries a very different tack.

"Hi. How are you getting on?" he asks the clerk. "This can't be easy for you. What is the situation with flights?". The clerk tells him what she had told the last passenger, but then goes on to volunteer;

"If it will help I can offer you some meal vouchers while you are waiting"

Sure, says Lee, appreciating the gesture...

"And I can arrange" she goes on "complimentary hotel accommodation overnight to minimise your inconvenience"

The result? He didn't get home any quicker but he got to enjoy his unavoidable day in New York with only minor inconvenience and reduced stress. The passenger before him, with his aggressive, albeit understandable stance, was left with only his rage.

I wrestled with this, while fishing. Was Lee just being polite? Undoubtedly. But what else did he do?

He recognised or acknowledged the clerk's role in this situation, and gave her respect by doing so.

He also created space for himself to consider a different perspective rather than being consumed by the situation he found himself in. The result is that the situation was resolved as best as it possibly could have been.

Lee explained that a favourite line of his when faced with other frustrating situations is "Is there anything you could do to help. I'd greatly appreciate it if so." Again, Lee is inviting co-operation rather than laying down a challenge and even as he asks the question, he is reassuring the other party that they are safe to explore solutions together.

The other passenger was not only rude but unwittingly contributed to his own situation. Given the tack he adopted, which was quite a natural one in the circumstances, he not only reduced the likelihood of working together to find some solutions - meal vouchers and accommodation provided free of charge - but he made such collaboration impossible. In the face of his stance, was it easier, or safe, for the clerk to offer him assistance - which may well have provoked further outbursts - or easier to shut up shop, withdraw within herself and wait for him to move onto the next desk?

A simple fable but one I enjoyed in the telling. Thanks Lee for letting me share it. Now, anyone for sea bass?

Conflict resolution in practice

Just as very exciting things are happening to me here in the UK with various new developments, here is a top journal entry from Kumvera on developments in a mediation process in Zambia.

There is something about this article that really appeals to me. For whatever reason it feels wonderfully hopeful. Perhaps it is the opportunity to see conflict resolution in its most early stages. Besides, the photo-montage of the farmers meeting is a real winner and worth clicking through to in itself.

I hope that this journal will continue and that we can all share in the trials and tribulations that lay ahead. Please do visit Ka-Hey over at Kumvera and leave a comment encouraging more reports.

Conflict like Nam Pla

I was reminded today of a situation where someone had lost their cool in a meeting I was in. They were upset in case they had "Blown it."

They couldn't have been further from the truth. I explained that often conflict, or differences in opinion are like Nam Pla, or Fish sauce as it is better known.

Those of you who enjoy Thai cooking will be familiar with Nam Pla. It is made from steeping, or brewing, dead fish. It is utterly rank with one of the most offensive smells to come out of a bottle. But when it is added with other ingredients to make the dish, then it imparts this wonderfully evocative depth of flavour.

Very often, if we try to pass through a dispute without addressing the conflict then we only get part of the picture. We are trying to resolve matters at the levels where both parties feel comfortable. However, if we can make it safe to communicate our or their strongest grievances then we add so much flavour and understanding to the process.

Fish sauce on its own is rancid. But handled carefully, and added to the recipe at the right time and without allowing it to overpower the dish, then you get the full flavour. To leave it out altogether would only result in a tasteless compromise and deny all of the participants within the meal a full appreciation of what could have been.

5 tips on embracing conflict - from Jamie Notter

A great article here by fellow blogger Jamie Notter with no less than 5 tips on just how to embrace conflict. Please do click through to read them.

I responded in his comments that I once spent all day in a meeting where we there were some serious managerial issues to resolve. I knew that one of the non-agenda, unspoken issues was a dispute between two members and I spent the best part of the day trying to get that dispute to surface.

If we didn't then the ongoing animosity would have surfaced in some other environment or at an inopportune moment. At least if we wrestled with it here and now then we could ensure it was safe to explore the topic. I call this "bloodletting", a safe controlled releasing of the pressure.

A greater concern of mine was that if the matter was left unresolved then it would have sabotaged the real progress we had made that day.

It was frustrating that we got to 30 minutes of the end of the meeting only for the topic to rear its head then. I do wish we had got it out earlier. The participant who raised the issue had been worried that if he had raised the objections earlier that he would have spoiled the meeting.

A pity. If we are able to recognise our differences and embrace our conflicts, then we create such richly textured, sincere relationships on which to build future agreements. Who knows what we could have achieved. Who knows what suggestions might have been held back before the grievances were aired and resolved.