Supporting Difficult Conversations: Articulation And Application Of The Transformative Framework At Greenwich Mediation

Tweet

Background & History of Greenwich Mediation

Founded in 1995, Greenwich Mediation was initiated by the local government Housing Department to address a need for community based conflict intervention services that could act quickly and independently, to both be and be seen to be community-led. “Anti-social behaviour” is identified as a key area for policy development by local authorities in England. Greenwich Mediation was proactive in helping the local authority in Greenwich to develop a policy of mediation as a first option response, rather than a last resort intervention, to conflict^[1] . This view of mediation, as conflict-response rather than conflict management, is one cornerstone of the philosophy that underlies the work of the organization.

Located in the south-eastern area of London’s outer rim, Greenwich is one of the thirty-one boroughs into which London is divided. The perception of Greenwich promoted by borough and tourism authorities is that of a leafy green area brimming with historical buildings and monuments, and well-kept open spaces of outstanding natural beauty. All of this is true. But it is not the only true picture of Greenwich.

One in six residents of the borough is unemployed, single parents head 64% of families, the average adult reading age is twelve, and almost two in five adults have literacy difficulties. Subsidised public housing is home to 45,000 tenants. The racially mixed area is comprised of a number of settled communities that have arrived in waves across the decades. The post-war years have brought the most recently settled communities, including those from the Caribbean in the 1950’s, Africa in the 1960’s, Asia (Indian sub-continent) in the 1970’s, and those from China and Vietnam in the 1980’s. More recently, new communities include those arriving from war torn East and West Africa, as well as those from the former Yugoslavia.

The largest number of longer established white communities and their heritage date back to the Viking, Roman, Celtic, Angle and Saxon excursions to the shores of Britain. The African presence in Europe is of course an undisputed fact of history and one we can assume as acknowledged here^[2] .

The Centre’s Work and Organisational Context

Working to a borough-wide brief, Greenwich Mediation recruits and trains volunteer mediators and today has twenty mediators, representing fourteen communities and speaking nineteen languages. To date, ninety-six local people have been trained to act as mediators, delivering almost 4000 mediation sessions involving 12,000 people. Of the Centre’s clientele, 53% are unemployed. The programme employs seven staff.

For the first two years following its inception, all casework was referred by the Housing Department and focused only on disputes between neighbours and communities, whereas now, the Centre also accepts casework from schools, youth at risk of homelessness and from the workplace. A high percentage—on average 50%--of the entire caseload includes a racial element. Today, people who bypass all agencies and refer themselves directly to the centre account for almost 30% of all casework. This is one indication of the centre’s standing as an integral part of the community.

The centre’s mission to enable people of all ages, abilities and cultures to be or become actively involved in changing their quality of life is a central characteristic of our organisational commitment to community development.

Supporting people in building their own capacities for development, growth and self-determination, we view as benchmarks of equality and this forms part of our ideological and philosophical commitment to the development of good practice in mediation.

These pre-existing commitments were the centre’s precursors to the transition towards the transformative framework of mediation practice.

In 1998, Greenwich Mediation became the first mediation centre in the U.K. to begin practising exclusively from the transformative framework.

Choosing the Transformative Orientation to Mediation

Recognizing the Limitations of Agreement-Driven Mediation Models

“Listening, talking and working together to reach agreement about dispute” was the mission statement quoted in the Centre’s first annual report in 1996. It is reflective of the agreement-driven approach to mediation in which the Centre’s initial group of mediators were trained, an approach so widely used in mediation programmes throughout the United Kingdom that to mediate any other way is almost unheard of. This approach to mediation makes a basic assumption that what parties in any mediation want most is to get their conflict settled and to reach some sort of agreement about how they will coexist in the future. There is a logical sense to this notion of mediation, but only if one views conflicts as problems that need to be resolved.

From our earliest experiences with clients, we began to realize that this approach to mediation was simply too limited in terms of addressing what was important to parties who are experiencing conflict. We saw that while our clients were indeed interested in working out agreements to problems, this was by no means their only concern. In fact, the use of a mediation model that emphasized a continuous drive toward the goal of agreement seemed to give short shrift to our clients’ needs to fully work through the complex layers of interaction that so often characterize interpersonal conflict. Put another way, we began to see that mediation needed to address not only the “what” of conflict, but also the “why” and “how” of conflict interaction.

For example, we frequently worked with clients who were disturbed by noise from nearby neighbours, yet time and again, it became apparent that it wasn’t only the noise in these situations that was troublesome. When our clients would meet their neighbours in the road, it bothered them that there were obvious negative feelings or awkward interactions. And, because of the ethnic make-up of the borough, these interactional issues often included class, culture and race dimensions—from ignorance and insensitivity all the way to active racism and many points in between. The agreement-focused model we were using emphasized identifying tangible issues and solving problems and, though our mediators had become adept at using it and could indeed help people find solutions, the most significant aspect of their difficulty was missed if the interaction between the parties was not addressed. Furthermore, in those mediation sessions when we did see changes in the way parties were relating to one another, we couldn’t really pin down anything our mediators were doing to aid in that change. We began to realize that we wanted to mediate in such a way that the positive interactional shifts we were sometimes seeing could happen not just in spite of what mediators did, but because of what mediators did. We understood, therefore, that we needed a mediation methodology that would allow us to support our clients with respect to difficult interactions—both as they talked about these interactions and even as the uncomfortable conversations took place right there during the mediation sessions.

Discovering The Promise of Mediation

When we read The Promise of Mediation^[3] , we were delighted to find that somebody else was actually thinking and talking about the same things we were. We read the book, studied transformative mediation, and worked to develop our own articulation of the transformative framework. The more we came to understand transformative mediation, the more we came to recognize it as an approach in keeping with our own organizational values: respecting difference, honouring client choice, and focusing on conflict interaction. We found ourselves resonating with the book’s premise that people relate to one another on the basis of who they are and from their own unique viewpoint. Different viewpoints lead to different ways of making decisions. We also agreed with the authors’ assertion that while human beings have the capacity for making their own decisions, people experiencing conflict often find themselves feeling temporarily less self-assured and more self-absorbed. Decision-making and the capacity for taking on board other viewpoints are often diminished for a time. Interactions between people engaged in conflict are often fraught with tension and upset.

Clarity began to emerge for us in terms of what mediators could do to be of help to parties during these moments of interactional crisis. We have found that offering support (listening, paraphrasing, clarifying) can lead to changes in the quality of interaction between the parties. As these gradual changes in interaction occur, parties may feel the tension abate, and at the same time, may feel more in control of themselves and more open toward each other. As these individual and interactional shifts occur, the entire conversation can take on a different tone. Parties speak more freely to one another, and even when the issues brought in may not always end up resolved by the end of the session, it often is the case that the nature and character of the interaction has been changed in such a way that parties say they would feel more comfortable approaching one another in the future without the aid of third party intervention.

The Role of the Mediator: Attending to Party Interaction Allows Real Issues to Unfold

As we began working from the transformative orientation, mediators started to look differently at mediation and at the role of the mediator. Mediators began to attend more to what seemed to really matter to the parties—their interactions—and less to what they’d been trained to focus on: outcomes, agreements, and solutions. Moreover, we often found that when our support led to improved party interactions, the parties themselves were quite capable of making their own decisions and resolving whatever issues existed between them. One of the important lessons we have learned about the role of the mediator in supporting difficult conversations is that while mediator support may lead to eased tensions and even conciliation between parties, it is also true that such changes may not occur. Respecting party interaction and party choice means leaving all outcomes up to those who are involved in the conflict.

We discovered, too, how important the focus on party interaction was in terms of allowing conversations related to race and class to unfold. Because mediators working from the transformative framework do not identify issues or move the parties through mediator-driven agendas, parties are free to discuss whatever is important to them, whenever and however it comes up. While this naturally means the conversation is unpredictable and may be uncomfortable, it also means that, usually for the first time, parties are supported in their efforts to talk about deeply held feelings, assumptions, and beliefs that may have played a part in the difficulties they have had relating to one another. Furthermore, because of our adherence to transformative principles, our mediators do not use the mediation process as a way of advancing their own notions of justice or equality. Rather, our appreciation that each party’s reality is his or her own informs our practice to support both sides of any conversation the parties are willing to have.

We view this notion of practice as significantly different from the “impartial” stance that our earlier training in agreement-focused mediation would have encouraged. A mediator who works from a place of impartiality is on no one’s side. In the context of social justice, we saw this as a form of collusion with the status quo, potentially promoting the disenfranchisement of people from historically oppressed minority communities. In keeping with our commitment to support all parties through their interactions with one another, we saw the need for a “multipartial” practice in which mediators could be seen as being on everybody’s side. This practice of multipartiality has allowed us to offer support to conversations about race, misunderstandings, prejudice, injustice and oppression that have happened between people of very different social, economic, and cultural backgrounds.

For the sake of clarity, it must be said that the allowance for party discussion of race and class issues is not specifically promoted by the transformative framework; what we have found, however, is that use of the transformative approach to mediation does not stand in the way of such discussion, and in fact supports it, which is a claim that cannot be made about any other orientation to mediation that we have explored. To further support the kind of open and constructive discussion of race and class issues that exist in a diverse area such as Greenwich, mediator training is designed to prepare them for the inevitability that underlying race and class issues will occur in mediation, and to help them to put aside whatever feelings of discomfort they may be having in service to the clients’ needs for open discussion of these issues.

As significant shifts began to occur in the way we were doing mediation and in the way parties’ interactions were changing, a new kind of excellence crept into the mediation process, not by accident, but as the result of purposeful interventions by the mediators. The Centre’s annual reports in recent years reflect our emerging understanding of conflict and our philosophy of mediation: “People talk, People listen, Things change,” was the title of the Centre’s 1998 report, and the title of our 2001 annual report accurately sums up our approach to conflict response: “Supporting Difficult Conversations.”

Transformative Mediation: One Application of the Relational Worldview

As we have continued to develop our understanding and articulation of the transformative orientation to mediation, we have recognized that the framework is an application of a broader ideological theory on how the world and one’s place in it may be viewed. Commonly called the “relational worldview” ^[4] , this orientation to self and others emphasizes the inherent and inevitable connections between and among human beings. To operate from a relational perspective is to be keenly aware of those connections and the impact of their continuous influence. “We both perceive and value the power of relatedness in the creation of all that our lives are,” writes Mary Gergen. ^[5] Furthermore, the orientation suggests that human beings are capable of both self-interest and responsiveness to others, and of integrating the two. As our mediators were seeing these aspects of relatedness play themselves out in mediation sessions, we were also recognizing that a relational way of being was by no means limited to the mediation process. As an organization, we could also choose to operate according to relational principles. As we looked more deeply into the implications of such an intentional structuring of the organization, we quickly found that many of our existing policies and procedures were already grounded in a tacit appreciation of the framework, and that deliberate attempts to operationalize the orientation served as refinements to an already highly relational organization.

A Relational Approach to Quality Standards

In an article describing the transformative orientation to mediation, authors Baruch Bush and Joseph Folger have coined the phrase, “purpose drives practice,” ^[6] suggesting that one’s activities as a mediator are the outgrowth of a conscious intent to work from a particular set of principles. Often quoted at training sessions at Greenwich Mediation, the saying serves as a homing device to bring practitioners back to the transformative orientation as their source for mediator behaviour.

The phrase, as well as its reference to the transformative framework, could also be used to refer to the organizational focus on high quality service. If a commitment to high quality can be seen as a river that flows through every aspect of the organization, then a consciously relational point of view can be seen as the spring from which the river begins its journey. In terms of providing services to a diverse clientele, operating from a relational worldview means that the mindset of the organization is “pro-client,” with an appreciation that we work with different people who have different but equally valid requirements.

Based on a relational orientation to service delivery, a number of quality standards have emerged, one of which is in relation to mediator training. This quality standard is reflective of the relational worldview in that the requirements of clients, mediators, and the centre as a whole are all taken into consideration.

The Centre has been involved in the development of a mediator assessment process that is reflective of this relational approach to quality service. Articulated in the work of Judith Saul and James Antes (to which Centre mediators and staff were contributory) ^[7] , the terms “formative” and “summative” assessment were designed to refer to a way of assessing mediator skill that reflects a striving for relational balance. Formative assessment’s goal is the ongoing development of mediator practice. Summative assessment refers to a decision-making process including input from both trainees and centre staff that results in a determination of whether or not a particular trainee will become a part of the volunteer mediator pool.

New mediator trainees at Greenwich Mediation receive an initial twelve days (96 contact hours) of training, of which four days are theory-based and six are devoted to skills practice. At the close of the first ten days, the formative assessment process is begun. Each trainee is asked to take part in a videotaped mediation simulation that offers trainers a chance to discuss with each trainee his/her understanding of the framework and how it might be applied to conflict situations. Following the discussion of the videotape, each trainee is then offered a chance to participate in two further days of mediation practice, which provides a chance for application of feedback just received.

At this point, an interim summative decision is made based on a combination of each trainee’s demonstrated ability, and the Centre’s current capacity to offer further training and support. Each trainee is deemed either ready to mediate “live” or in need of further practice and support. If the decision in favour of “live” work is made, a further determination will be made as to the mediator’s readiness for pre-mediation work (with individual clients prior to joint session) or for mediation work with both/all parties present.

After mediators complete the initial twelve-day training and assessment process and begin to mediate for the Centre, they are offered a rolling program of post-training support that includes annual formative assessment, annual advanced skills training, semi-annual skills mastery classes, semi-annual mediation refresher sessions, and monthly focus sessions with fellow mediators and mediation coaches. It has been said that so much training and support for mediators reflects the “high cost of doing it right;” ^[8] but it is a high cost the organization definitely finds worthwhile.

Conclusion

From its inception, Greenwich Mediation has been an organization highly aware and appreciative of its roots in the community. A relational way of interacting with clients, volunteers, referral agencies, and supporters has been a consistent way of life for the Centre. Developing its own articulation of the transformative framework has therefore been a natural outgrowth of its commitment to relational principles.

As the Centre continues to serve an increasingly larger number of mediation clients each year, feedback indicates that the focus on supporting conflicting parties through difficult conversations is having significant impact both on individual parties and on the community as a whole. Continuing its commitment to the relational framework, the Centre is currently heading into new areas of practise, including workplace mediation, expanded work in schools, and training in relational conflict response for community organisations.

End Notes

1 “A Work in Progress”, Greenwich Mediation Annual Report, 1996

2 Patricia Gonsalves “Marketing (and More) For Diversity,” Conflict Resolution Notes, Vol. 17, No. 1, July 1999

3 Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. Folger The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition (1994).

4 Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. Folger The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition (1994) Jossey-Bass

5 Marty Gergen, “Relational Responsibility: Deconstructive Possibilities” in Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue Sheila McNamee and Kenneth Gergen (1999) Sage Publications

6 Joseph P. Folger and Robert A. Baruch Bush “Transformative Mediation and Third-Party Intervention: Ten Hallmarks of a Transformative Approach to Practice,” Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 13, no 4

7 J.R. Antes & J.A. Saul “Evaluating Mediation Practice from a Transformative Perspective,” Mediation Quarterly, Vol. 18, no. 3., 2001.

8 This comment was made by Kenneth Fox, Director of Conflict Studies at Hamline University, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Jinda and Sonia: A Case Study

They had been neighbours for five years, but Jinda and Sonia didn't really have much to do with each other apart from a greeting when they went in and out. Jinda lived with her husband, mother and two small children. Her mother looked after the children during the day. Sonia lived with her mother and slightly older children. As both women worked full time, weekends were hectic, but both families found time to relax, having friends and family over and listening to music.

Things started to go wrong one Tuesday morning when Sonia received a letter from the council's environmental health department about playing loud music. She was shocked, upset and worried. Then she felt anger and disbelief. She'd only had a few friends and family round for Sunday dinner. They'd chatted, listened to music and the kids played games, just as they'd done many times and the last person had left by 12.45am. Sonia decided to speak with Jinda as soon as she got back from work that evening. When she rang her neighbor’s door, Jinda wasn’t back from work yet. Sonia asked if Jinda could come up and see her on her return. By 9pm Jinda hadn't turned up and Sonia was feeling rising frustration, worry and anger.

At 9.30pm Sonia went downstairs and Jinda opened the door. Sonia asked if she had got her message. Jinda said she had, but she was tired and felt that if she had gone upstairs when feeling like this an argument was likely. Sonia showed Jinda the letter and Jinda admitted she'd made the complaint because on that particular evening she hadn't been able to take the noise any more.

Sonia's anger and frustration mounted - she couldn't understand how things had got to this stage - they'd never had a cross word before and she couldn't understand why her neighbour hadn't knocked on the door to talk to her about the noise. Afterwards, Sonia was so upset that she contacted environmental health her tenancy officer and both agreed that mediation might help.

At pre-mediation meetings Sonia talked about her anxieties, hurt feelings and the fear that she and her family would be evicted. She also feared she wouldn't be believed by any professional agency. Jinda, on the other hand, focused on how late the noise had gone on. She had been having a difficult evening and the noise had been the last straw. During the pre-mediation meetings, mediators listened, reflecting back significant points each party made, helping each of the women (in separate sessions) to clarify what she might choose to discuss with the other party at the joint mediation session.

Both parties agreed to speak with each other and two mediators. At first, the meeting was understandably difficult and stilted. Initially, the parties’ comments were directed mostly toward the mediators rather than toward one another. Rather than attempting to direct the parties to communicate with one another, the mediators recognized that the parties’ choice to communicate in this way was likely to have been brought about by feelings of disempowerment. Believing in the parties’ capacity to make their own choices, the mediators allowed the parties to set their own pace, to make their own decisions about what to discuss, and to make their own choices about toward whom their comments would be directed.

The parties expressed their frustrations and talked about the situation from their own points of view. The mediators continued listening in a multipartial way, lifting up and clarifying the unique and differing points between Sonia’s and Jinda’s views on the situation. Eventually Sonia broke down, and Jinda looked on the verge of tears. Mediators highlighted the emotional content of what was being said by both women. At this point the women began to talk more openly and to express their anxieties and fears. Sonia said her neighbour had overreacted. Sonia felt she was a good neighbour but had lots of responsibilities, as she was solely responsible for keeping a roof over her entire family’s head. Jinda said she felt afraid to speak to Sonia when her friends and family were there, but she was sorry and she hadn’t thought it through. The mediators recognized the importance of the interchange between Sonia and Jinda as evidence of shifts toward greater empowerment (each party became clearer about her own feelings and concerns) and recognition (both Sonia and Jinda were able to hear and to begin to understand what the other was saying). As these shifts began to occur, a change also happened in the way the parties were interacting with one another. Their conversation now was a dialogue between the two of them, with comments made to mediators less and less frequently. As this shift in the tone of the session took place, the mediators continued to listen and to offer support through their presence and attention, allowing the conversation to continue with very few interventions of their own, in view of the parties’ growing capacity to talk through their situation together.

The parties made a shift toward concluding the meeting when they both agreed to speak about things in the future and not to make assumptions and judgments without at least trying to have a discussion first. Jinda acknowledged that she had got things wrong and had overreacted, saying she would "do things differently next time". Sonia understood that the noise that evening had been the climax of a difficult day for Jinda. Both parties left together and travelled home in the same car.

Biography

Tweet

Comments

Tweet

---

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

patricia	07/21/05
Add New Comment

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.