MAPPING CONFLICT & OUTCOME
Sometime ago I chanced upon a book called “Games people play” by Dr Eric Berne. An intriguing title for an intriguing book. It elucidated for me why some conversations (transactions) denigrate into a heated match of words, though they had begun cordially and followed a logical pattern up to a point.
I learned through the book that regardless of age there is an inherent “three ego states” in conversations. According to the author every conversation can be broken down into Parent, Adult and Child ego states. A conversation between two people in a similar state would not cause conflict. However, if a statement made triggered an emotion that led to a changed ego state it could potentially trigger a conflict.
Let’s look at an everyday example of a conversation between two adults. There is a suggestion made in regards to food something of the nature “I am hungry can we get something to eat”, if it is a meal time one could respond “ sure” and with the two in an “adult” state the conversation may end there. However, if it is not a mealtime and the res-ponder decides to switch to a “parental” ego state with “Hey maybe we should not snack given our weight-loss targets”, the conversation has the potential to be derailed. The meal proposer has now been forced into a defensive position, perhaps to a “child” state and the entire conversation has gone off track. Although there was no ill intention on either part.
This awareness can help parties analyze the various conversations, dispute, and emotionally charged conflicts. It would therefore follow that every conversational communication between persons is a method adopted to draw an anticipated reaction and if successful it results in a reward. However, if unsuccessful methods of re-framing the conversation could be adopted till the objective is achieved. In other words, can we treat conversations as game and by understanding the rules and work on predicting an outcome.
Given this idea that conversations are a game with set rules that can offer an outcome, I am now tempted to think about this in terms of a formal mediation. The Jurisprudential Principles of Mediation prevent us from offering solutions as it is the right of the parties to self-determine their middle ground. Therefore, as mediators or facilitators of the conversation we only have the power to persuade parties to talk. However, if we can analyze the way the conversations are going perhaps, we could start seeing where the results are headed and if so, offer an intervention so the parties in the mediation come out as winners. But it is crucial that the intervention adheres to the laws that are governing us.
With our ability to deconstruct conversations I now wanted to understand how we could find means to indirectly intervene or communicate an idea. The best example I recalled was an advertisement for a car which stated, “At sixty miles an hour the loudest sound you hear that of the clock”. It communicated the simple idea of around minimizing noise without once mentioning any of the complexities. Could we use a similar technique to intervene and help parties recognize the futility of prolonged dispute? Books like the “The Psychology of Compliance”, gives insight into how people can be influenced without them recognizing, but it leads to a moral conundrum. If mediators were to persuade or influence too much, it may amount to them being invested the our come of the process and perhaps degrade their neutrality.
When disputants have sought intervention of a mediator to seek resolution, success in resolution becomes limited. None of the parties involved (disputants or the mediator) can influence the overall outcome due to a lack of reciprocity in the process. In the absence of reciprocity, the ability to influence may not exist. Mediators for their part offer empathy and process guidance so unless parties find that reciprocity it would seem like resolution is just a chance.
Therefore, if all negotiations are just games people play, but are unable to predict the outcome, mediators become fans in a football game supporting both sides, vociferous in their support but overall inconsequential to the outcome.
I would be remiss if I did not point our that personal mediation and commercial mediation offer their own unique twists and rules in their game. In a personal conflict emotions (positive & negative), inflexibility, financial well-being, duration of mediation, cost of the process, societal pressure, and lack of legal knowledge add complexities that are in no way related to the actual conversations. Whereas in a Commercial dispute past litigative history, size of business, criticality of disputant for the business, size of the business in proportion to the opponent, financial resources, duration and cost of the conflict are some of the factors considered. However, each part considering themselves the victim is a common underlying theme.
Given the research out there and the complexities of situation, we really must ask the question:
Is it possible for a mediator to identify the key factors that influence the outcome of a mediation?
