Last week, the New York Times published an article by Jane E. Brody titled “Frank Talk About Care at Life’s End.”  The article covered some of the thorny issues surrounding “the medical, humanitarian and economic value of helping terminally ill patients and and their families navigate treatment options as they approach the  end of life.”  Leaving aside the politics (politicians) and the political (New York State’s medical society), this topic raises fundamental questions from the perspective of elder mediation.

In any conflict, complete and accurate information is essential for good decision-making. If one or more parties is using inaccurate information or partial information, it is difficult to reach a good resolution — even if no emotional impact is involved.  Add the emotional strain of end-of-life decision-making by families and a good decision-making process is very difficult even  in a conflict-free family (if such a family exists.)

From the perspective of preventing, reducing, and resolving conflicts,  more and accurate information for families means better decisions.

The upcoming “direct talks” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process are in the news.  Some stories reference “mediators”, some “negotiators”, some “diplomats”.  So what’s in a name? Does it matter what the people are called?

In these high profile situations, it seems at times that the connotation of a word can mean as much as the denotation — a strict dictionary definition isn’t enough. Ultimately, the parties’ perceptions are essential,  including the perceptions of the representatives in a direct talk and those representatives’ constituencies, however that might be defined.

Most important is that the neutral, whatever that person is called, is exactly that: neutral.

A few days ago, NPR’s “Morning Edition” ran a story called “Tourists Seek Real Berlin on Bridge, Find Controversy.”  As reporter Eric Westervelt summed it up, the residents who live near the bridge want a good night’s sleep and a better plan to manage the city’s “growing tourist industry and the local conflicts that success can sometimes provoke.” A romantic 19th century bridge, the Admiralsbruecke, was recently listed on a tourist website as a place where the locals go, prompting young tourists in search of an authentic experience to flock there. The problem is that as the night wears on, the noise and mess of the crowd on the bridge wears down those who live nearby.

What’s refreshing is the local authorities’ approach to this conflict — a genuine attempt at conflict resolution. As Westervelt reports, they “have brought in a team of professional mediators to create a dialogue…. [T]he mediation team spends three nights a week on the bridge mediating between residents and tourists…as well as the police, and local businesses.”  Most of the tourists are open to discussing the problem, but a resolution to the conflict is not yet achieved.  Nevertheless, a commitment to mediation with a team of professional mediators is an encouraging start.

We don’t always think of Russia as a nation with a strong emphasis on enlightened dispute resolution processes or a desire to craft conflict resolution procedures that embody respect and equality for participants. So, a recent online article in “The Voice of Russia” caught my eye.

According to the July 30, 2010 article, a new law creates “a basically new institution, namely mediation, as well as a new profession, – a reconciliation expert. Experts feel that mediation will be able to drastically change for the better the performance of courts and improve Russia’s moral environment. Special-purpose mediators will help the parties to a conflict thrash out their differences and forget about their problems. Experts also believe that the law on mediation will relieve the courts of a great many cases and enable them to concentrate on really involved matters. Reconciliation experts will certainly prove much in demand in divorce suits, as well as in labour disputes.”

There may be some unintended changes in the translation, but it is interesting to read the idea that mediation could “improve Russia’s moral environment.”  Mediation’s benefits are many, and its boosters are not shy in naming them, but this idea may be a first.

TV pilots cover a wide range of topics; some reach production and some don’t.  One that caught my eye actually involves mediation.  Backstage.com describes it this way:

Facing Kate (Drama, USA Network) A top litigator, frustrated with the bureaucracy and injustice she witnesses in the legal system, decides to become the ultimate anti-lawyer: a mediator.

A couple of things are interesting.  First, someone thinks that mediators are the ultimate anti-lawyers. This notion might surprise more than a few people who practice both law and mediation (and maybe arbitration, too),  as well as mediators who work productively with attorneys on a regular basis.

Second, what exactly would a TV series about a mediator show?  Lots and lots of conversation, with few visible “gotcha” or “aha” moments?  Thought bubbles in which the participants’ inner voices contrast with their spoken words?

Stay tuned, and keep an eye out for “Facing Kate”.

Last time, I wrote about a New York Times article, by John Schwartz, “More Delicate Diplomacy for the Overseer of the Compensation Fund,” describing Kenneth Feinberg’s recent swing through Louisiana in his work as administrator of the BP claims fund.  Feinberg’s work is often described as that of a mediator, which may be in a stretch in some ways.

But some of his work captures the essence of mediaiton.  He knows, from extensive experience, about the pain of those who are making claims.  As Feinberg put it in the article: ” ‘ If you are not willing to go into the lion’s den and confront the emotion and the hurt, you shouldn’t do it. ‘ “

I’d suggest that’s a man working as a mediator, not an arbitrator simply determining a loss and announcing an award.

In yesterday’s New York Times, John Schwartz’s article, “More Delicate Diplomacy for the Overseer of the Compensation Fund,” described Kenneth Feinberg’s swing through Louisiana.  Feinberg is handling the BP compensation fund, in much the same way as he has done before,  following the 9/11 attacks and various mass tort situations.

As the article notes, even with $20 billion in funds, Feinberg is facing skepticism and reluctance to participate. I’m not sure if it is discouraging or reassuring that he is confronted with a common problem for mediators: how to get parties to the mediation table. Thus, he was “playing the role of salesman and politician.”  We more ordinary mediators can often struggle to persuade parties to give mediation a try.  Let’s hope that Feinberg’s latest high-stakes, high visibility mediation process helps to further illuminate why it can be in the parties’ own best interest to mediate.

It seems a natural instinct for some (most?) people to try to avoid conflict. They will excuse bad behavior, wait for things to get better on their own (with no real reason for a bad situation to improve), engage in denial, learn to live with it,make unreasonable compromises, etc., etc.

Rarely does conflict avoidance lead to conflict prevention, conflict reduction, or conflict resolution.  Instead, it can lead to conflict escalation. If you have tried conflict avoidance, and find yourself in a worsening situation, it might be time for mediation.

As I wrote about last time, last week I had the pleasure of participating in a daylong Summer Institute program presented by the New England Chapter of the Association for Conflict Resolution (NE-ACR).  We were treated to a rich day of skills building from StageCoach improv. Specifically, we were part of their Conflict Resolution Interactive Skills Program (CRISP), a customized “set of exercises and techniques employed by professional improvisational actors designed to enable professional mediators to optimally perform in the moment.”

The idea that much of our communication is done through tone of voice and body language, as opposed to mere words, is not new.  Nor is the idea that miscommunication is a prime source of conflict. Professionals in conflict management (whether working early on, before the dispute has escalated, or late in the conflict when mediation is employed) frequently caution parties about the dangers of email, texts, and other written communications that don’t provide tone and body language.

The instructors from StageCoach improv cited a UCLA study by Psychology Professor Albert Mehrabian that drove this point home. Professor Mehrabian found that a paltry 7% of communication was conveyed by the words used themselves. Fully 38% of communication was contained in tone of voice and 55% in body language.  As dispute resolution professionals, we were reminded that our own communication and the communication between the parties in a mediation are no different and that we ignore these facts at our peril!

Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in a daylong Summer Institute program presented by the New England Chapter of the Association for Conflict Resolution (NE-ACR).  We were treated to a rich day of skills building from StageCoach improv. Specifically, we were part of their Conflict Resolution Interactive Skills Program (CRISP), a customized “set of exercises and techniques employed by professional improvisational actors designed to enable professional mediators to optimally perform in the moment.”

One exercise stood out as both funny and deeply insightful.  As mediators, we are conscious of  “the inner voice” that thinks what isn’t said.  Often that voice is our own as mediators, as we are strategizing over how to help the parties in a mediation to move toward resolution.  In this exercise, professional actors played the inner voices of two parties involved in conflict. As they discussed their dispute, but made little progress towards actual dispute resolution, we saw a realistic portrayal of what might be going through the parties’ minds.  Afterward, we discussed how their thoughts were reflected (or even deflected) by their spoken words — and how to use this analysis in a mediation, as we helped parties move toward conflict resolution.