Recently (as part of a book club), I read The Psychology of Conflict by Raul Randolph (Bloomsbury Publishing PLC, London 2016) who is a barrister and mediator. His approach is to use existentialism as the vehicle through which to discuss the psychological aspects of mediation.  Although some participants of mediation may deny and avoid  it, emotions are involved in any conflict. As  the author notes:

All conflict involves people, and so all conflict is inevitably ‘personal’. Without people, there would be no conflict, and people are never without emotions. So emotions are ever-present. (Id. at 43.)

Using this notion that emotion underlies our decision making (and indeed, about 90% of our decisions are based on emotion!), the author discusses the participants’ need for self-esteem, and their need to express themselves with the corresponding need to be heard without judgment. (Id. at 89-99.)  At one point, the author notes that “to win, a party has four essential needs that must be satisfied:

•         the need for vindication-to be proved right
•        the need for revenge- for the other party to feel the same or similar pain
•        the need for humiliation- for the other party to be shamed
•         the need for compensation- to recover perceived losses. (Id. at 117.)

As part of this discussion, the author delves into the participants’ perceptions, assumptions and biases noting that the essential job of the mediator is to secure “…a perception shift in the parties to the conflict.” (Id. at 101.) With this shift, the attitudes of the parties will change so that the gap between divergent views will narrow enough to find common ground and thus a resolution. (Id.)  To do this, the mediator must work with each party’s perceptions. “Perceptions are assumptions we all make—” (Id. at 104.) Often these assumptions- about the other party, her motivations, her behavior, the facts, or the law are incorrect. (Id. at 104-107.) Similarly, the mediator must be cognizant of a participant’s implicit cognitive biases and prejudices and recognize that to ask a party to change her position may create discomfort, if not cognitive dissonance, in that party. (Id. at 107-113.)   To overcome these issues, the author suggests the use of the “good enough principle” whereby the parties are urged to consider whether the resolution offered, though not ideal, is “good enough” for them. (Id. at 114.)  By using this as the measuring stick, it allows the parties to hold on to their own perceptions of self, yet settle the dispute.

Read original article


Tags: