Assumptions That Derail Dispute Resolution
It would seem that if disputing parties want to resolve outstanding issues using mediation that it should be fairly easy to accomplish. One problem, however, is that most of us carry assumptions that can easily derail progress during the sessions. Some of these assumptions are so basic that we don’t really consider them as factors that impact the process. Here are a few that I have found problematic:
1.) “Tell me what happened.” — For many people that request really is, “Tell me what happened in the way that I would tell a story.” And this typically means telling the story in chronological, cause-and-effect order. In other words, tell me what happened first and then what happened as a consequence of that. Actually, people usually tell their stories in order of importance, that is, they will tell you the most importance thing to them first, then other events of lesser importance. Imagine two people together: One wants to talk about the most important thing that happened first. The other person discounts that by asking to hear what things occured before that. The first person might feel that the second person doesn’t understand or appreciate the importance of the event that matters to them.
2.) “Let’s set emotions aside and discuss this rationally.” — The person to whom that is said might hear “Your emotions are not valid, nor important, and you are somehow less skilled than I am because I can control my emotions.” For most of us, emotions are what the conflict is about and not to express and deal with them discounts their importance. Such a person cannot be effective in dispute resolution while being asked to ignore their emotions. because those feelings are most relevant to them.
3.) “Let’s talk this through and reach an agreement.” — Joint, oral, on-the-spot problem solving is a skill. Some are comfortable doing just that. Others are less so and might hear, “You’re going to have to come up with an agreement with me on the spot without any help.” Someone more accustomed to reaching consensus by discussing with friends, family or legal council will hear that they are being forced to act immediately and independently—something they may not be experienced or comfortable doing alone.
These three are just some examples of the assumptions we can make in attempting dispute resolution that can negatively influence the most well-intended attempts. When discussions reach difficulties, I recommend stopping and considering just what are the basic assumptions that are being made about the process itself.
Unless the process works for all, it won’t work at all.