Mediation. Alain Lempereur
Читать онлайн книгу.
next step.
Yet, these toxic emotions – fear, sadness, anger, shame, etc. – when unmanaged, often damage relationships. Emotions can overwhelm not only those who experience them, but also those who are exposed to them: “You are not going to complain again …,” “Calm down!” In these examples, the listener reacts to emotions by refusing to acknowledge them, which can significantly exacerbate the expressed feelings. Or, the interlocutor can mirror these emotions (one's tears generate the other's tears) or transform them (one's fear provokes the other's anger). If the emotional spiral deepens, the parties can no longer focus effectively on the issues.
In particular, negative emotions nurture excessive aggression, whether they are unilateral or, most often, reciprocal. Aggression is communicated in writing (sending a certified mail to neighbors, former spouse, or associates; threatening e‐mail to multiple addressees) or orally (tone of voice, screaming) and is accentuated by word choice (irony, accusation, shaming, threat, insult), as well as body language and demeanor. The protagonists thus find themselves in an escalation that they no longer understand or fully control.
To stop this cycle, each party requires the first step from “the other.” They can all wait a long time like stone statues. In this blocked context, mediation is appropriate because an external third party, whom everyone agrees to meet, builds a bridge of “ceasefire” across the gap of negative emotions. This image of mediators with the white flag or blue helmets applies as much to wars between countries as to conflicts between groups and individuals. Mediators, ready to understand everyone, screen aggression; they translate the messages – transmitting the content without an aggressive tone – that thus become audible and acceptable to the other.
In these cases, mediators themselves need to know how to recognize, accept, and welcome emotions, consider them, name them, and channel them without rejecting them (Chapter 8). They witness the drama of both the emitted emotion and perceived emotion, as well as their intermingling (Lempereur and Colson 2004, chapter 6). They bring each of the parties to the mutual awareness of “How have our emotions overwhelmed our relationship?” We have often seen, in criminal mediation, for example, how a few hours of discussion can lead each person to recognize sincerely: “We both got angry …” After this de‐dramatization, the mediator can focus on the “relationship‐centered mediation.” Once the link is re‐established, the mediator withdraws and leaves the parties to deal with the problem between themselves, if possible. Or, in the framework of a “problem‐centered mediation,” they continue to help the parties formulate the needs underpinning their emotions and look for solutions together.
The Imbroglio of Accumulated Problems
In most cases, the parties do not have one problem to deal with, but many. Additionally, they may have different problems in mind, each of which is valued more or less according to their own priorities. If they cannot manage to sort out this imbroglio by themselves, mediation can be useful.
The supplier, their client, and the implementation of a contract
In this conflict, Client A considers the rule of law to be the uppermost consideration; on the other hand, their Supplier B emphasizes the lack of information, non‐compliant work techniques, and personal attacks. In the dialogue, each person repeats the important points for themselves, while carefully avoiding addressing those of the other.
PERSON A: Article 42 of that regulation provides, in case of transportation, that the manufacturer is liable.
PERSON B: But you did not give us any information about the quality of …
1 A: Anyway, six years ago, you gave us a hard time about … We did not come to terms with it.
2 B: What are you talking about? Are you the one complaining? Did you see how you received our representatives? You called them every name under the sun!
3 A: At our company, we favor directness. When we have something to say, we are frank about it.
4 B: But the delivered products were rigorously compliant with the contract.
5 A: I have already told you that Article 42 … provides that the manufacturer is liable.
A and B end up repeating themselves, and the dialogue goes around in circles (also see Chapter 6).
Anyone can observe these parallel “monologues” in conflict situations, both in negotiations and in court proceedings. It aims only to present to the other side the arguments that affect us, without responding to those put forward by the other side. It is a stubborn repetition of the same words, without going into detail or explaining each of the points that are important to the other. This “non‐dialogue” evokes a reciprocal avoidance that fails to deal with the problems of the other party. On the other hand, thanks to mediation, dialogue orchestrated by a third party – the “trilogue” or “trialogue” – brings the problems perceived by one and by the other into the exchange. In mediation, increasing importance is given to recognition of the essential role of the mediator as the organizer of the meetings (Lempereur 2015c), orchestrating a sequence where a typical agenda includes both parties' priorities. During this process, the mediator enforces the agenda and helps to clarify different points and how they are connected, so that each party successively goes after important points for oneself and for the other.
In the previous example, mediators devoted a time slot for speaking when the parties could successively explain themselves on the following:
For A:
The application of Article 42
Traces of old disputes (“Six years ago …”)
For B:
The reality of the lack of information
The greetings of representatives perceived as insulting
The compliance verification of the delivered products
From there, and subject to good faith in the statement of concerns by each person, the mediator invites each party to integrate what poses a problem for the other. This reciprocal recognition, by accepting possible disagreements on the interpretation of the facts, contributes to the emergence of potential solutions to the problems invoked by each party.
In addition to this juxtaposition of priorities, another source of complexity is that mediation succeeds in managing the existence of many intertwined, independent, but linked conflicts. What appeared to be one conflict, is, in reality, many underlying conflicts. In court, where a conflict hides other ones, judges find themselves quickly annoyed: solicited for a particular dispute, they cannot rule on another one, even if it is linked to the first one. Mediators, on the other hand, embrace the complexity of the diverse elements of the conflict.
On a farm: One thing leading to another
A court commissions a mediator to help find an agreement between a farm in financial difficulty and its creditors. Throughout the course of a session, the mediator realizes, while listening to the farmer, that the latter is confronted by two other conflicts: with his wife in the settling of a divorce, and with his brothers for the succession of their parents' farm. The mediator, feeling that the conflicts are related and knowing that resolving one may help to unfreeze the other, takes on work with the farmer and his wife on the one hand and with the farmer and his brothers on the other hand. They thus arrive at two distinct agreements, one on the divorce and one on the succession. These two conflicts settled, the financial capacities of the farmer improve: an agreement occurs with the creditors to keep up the establishment and restructure the repayment of debts. The resolution of the financial conflict with