Voluntary Mediation

I am a huge proponent of a decision, voluntarily and mutually made, by people in conflict to turn to a third party in their quest for resolution.  I especially appreciate people who realize the path to conflict resolution is a stepped process starting with discussions or direct negotiations and then moving to third party intercession where they are still discussing, negotiating, and trying to achieve resolution.  At this stage they are not necessarily or yet adversaries, or disputants, or even opponents. They have a problem which, because of emotions, lack of new ideas, or some act of frustration makes direct communication impractical as a process towards resolution. They need someone with skill through whom they can communicate and to whom they are willing to entrust return communications, facilitating them towards new thinking, and focusing them on issues rather than on the person with whom they are in conflict. In my mind the intercessor they need is a problem solver that could be either a facilitator (if only process is involved) or a problem solving oriented and skilled mediator.  Let me give you an example, by means of a hypothetical case.

Two neighbors, one has trees growing just inside his property line while the other is an avid gardener who meticulously maintains his vegetation and garden area. The trees have lot of leaves. They have grown rather large with some of the branches actually growing over the property line. Leaves are falling in large numbers and the number falling into the neighbors yard is annoying the neighbor. The two neighbors do no routinely communicate and the annoyed neighbor is considering what he should do. When there were previous issues, say over a barking dog of the neighbor with the trees, communications broke down. According to his reasoning his choices are:

·         Attempt to talk to the neighbor with the trees.

·         Do some self help as allowed under the law for those portions of the tree which are hanging over his property.

·         Ignore and put up with the annoyance.

·         Opt for a third party to act as a “go between.”

If we’re in this kind of situation we might say “here’s what I would do if I were you …” But let’s assume the following:

·         Annoyed neighbor has a temper and fears that if he attempts to talk to the neighbor with the trees the issue could quickly escalate. He rejects making this attempt as too risky.

·         He can’t reach the offending limbs. He’d have to pay someone who had the equipment to reach the limbs. He cannot afford this option.

·         Once again he’s fearful that if he ignores the problem one day something will happen and he’ll just lose it. He rejects that notion.

·         He accepts the premise a third party is what he needs.

In the above there is a conflict, even a pre-existing condition, they do not communicate, but they are not opponents, disputants, or adversaries. The annoyed neighbor chooses a third party. Traditionally he could have gone to a neighbor, an elder, someone respected in the community. There may even have been a neighborhood conflict resolution process. Today, that may still exist in some neighborhoods, but more than likely neighborhoods today are, people living in close proximity with each other but without the aforementioned types of processes available to them.  Being a public TV watcher he’s become alert to programs dealing with this issue and he finds and watches a broadcast on voluntary mediation. He decides he’s going to check this process out. He talks to people he knows and he starts to get names and finally a referral from trusted friend and he makes the call.  The mediator does a case intake and offers to make contact with his neighbor. His skill in making such calls is validated when he calls the annoyed neighbor to tell him the neighbor with the trees agrees to participate.

It isn’t that hard a step to take. An experienced mediator knows how to assess cases during intake and although he highlights that refusal to mediate is about equal to the rate of acceptance in this case her approach worked. Maybe the neighbor with the trees realized there was a problem and knows he has to deal with it but also feels a third person is advisable.

The selected mediator needs to be able to discern what the problem is, analyze the interests, issues, and needs to frame the conflict adding structure around the problem and laying the foundation for a pathway towards resolution.

Instead what too often happens? There’s a confrontation followed by police involvement. Restraining orders are issued, a court hearing date is set. Any neighborly relationship is now adversarial. One decides to move. Life is disrupted by sleepless nights, and no end in sight.  Giving voluntary mediation a chance and finding the right mediator was the next right step in working towards resolution in this situation as it is in many business with business, business with client, and interpersonal relationships. Looking at conflict as a process requiring problem solving is a skill many mediators have.