by Jane Beddall on July 31, 2011
Many have wondered aloud how a mediator would work with the parties to the debt ceiling negotiations. Last time, I wrote about how the Speaker of the House lacked “authority” in his negotiations with the President. That’s just one of the hurdles that we have seen in attempts to resolve the debt ceiling dispute — and one that a mediator would be hard pressed to fix.
Another, equally important, obstacle has been the division within one “side” of the bargaining table. As we have heard repeatedly, some House Republicans aren’t that interested in reaching an agreement. It’s hard to engage in conflict resolution with folks who don’t want a resolution.
Apparently some of them believe that a failure to reach an agreement won’t be as bad as others on their side believe and publicly state. From a conflict resolution perspective, they have defined their WATNA, the Worst Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement, quite differently from the Republican leaders. Consequently, they measure any proposed negotiated agreement against a less terrible alternative. The better your WATNA (or even the less awful that it is), the less important it is to you to reach a resolution to the dispute. I doubt that a mediator, no matter how skilled, could change their view of their WATNA.
by Jane Beddall on July 30, 2011
Obviously much has been said and written about the debt ceiling negotiations, including how dysfunctional they are. More than one public commentator has wondered aloud about how a skilled mediator would deal with this mess.
I won’t get into the policies or the discussion about why we are having this crisis instead some sensible agreement having been reached long ago.
From a conflict resolution perspective, at least one thing was missing when Speaker Boehner negotiated one-on-one with President Obama. The Speaker of the House did not have “authority”. When sides sit down for a serious negotiation in an attempt to settle a dispute, each side must have authority. That is, whoever is at the table to represent one side in the dispute must have the power to reach a binding agreement. In the context of a lawsuit, sending a representative without authority to a mediation session is a waste of time and money — at best. More likely, the very act of sending someone without authority infuriates the other side.
Here, Speaker Boehner could not get enough support from House Republicans to seal the deal he wanted to make with the President. In the dispute resolution sense, he lacked authority.
by Jane Beddall on July 16, 2011
On Sunday, July 3, 2o11, the New York Times ran an article by John Leland titled “Love and Inheritance: A Family Feud.” In it, he details the travails of 93 year old Celeste Holm, movie star of bygone days, and her family. She and her 48 year old husband are pictured in the Central Park West apartment where she has lived since 1953, which is now “at the center of a bitter family battle that has poisoned her relationships with her two sons and exhausted all her other assets, including the trust fund that was supposed to pay her living expenses.” This battle is described as one that looks different to every participant in the dispute: does the husband covet his wife’s fortune? do the sons covet an inheritance? is Ms. Holm simply trying to lead an independent life and is she still competent to do so?
Sadly, this family dispute ended up in court. As the article so neatly sums up a common problem with this kind of family wealth conflict: “Hanging over all the parties is the question of why the lawsuit lasted so long and cost so much money — the very money they were fighting over.” On that topic, too, the parties — naturally — see the situation from very different perspectives.
Could mediation have helped this situation? Could it still help? Perhaps. It’s hard to turn back the clock and see what might have worked. Even if the legal aspects could not be successfully mediated, a mediator could provide some assistance. Sometimes, even when one aspect of a family conflict over estate planning or settlement is not amenable to mediation, another aspect is. That’s party of the beauty of mediation: it’s flexible.
by Jane Beddall on July 4, 2011
Today is July 4, Independence Day, and my thoughts turn to the relationship between mediation and independence. No, I don’t believe that mediation would have resolved the dispute between England and the Colonies. Nor does it seem likely that mediators could have prevented the Revolutionary War with a mediated resolution. Conflict resolution does have its limits.
But families, business partnerships, and others in conflict pay a price for it. Some of the price is fairly easy to calculate: attorneys fees, court costs, damages awarded to “the other side”. Some is much hard to put a dollar amount on: the stress, the distraction, the lost opportunities, the ruined relationships. These are the costs that can be overlooked or consciously ignored.
Finding a way to resolve a conflict can allow you to declare your independence and to move on. Mediation can help.