We usually associate flip charts with classroom or convention presentations, but their central purpose – to record and visually display information that will engage and stimulate audience participation -- is also ideal for mediation. Think about it. Robert Lucas, who is a professional “presenter,” says that flip charts are “the perfect medium for harnessing the collective brain power of a group.” He should know, since he’s literally written The Big Book of Flip Charts.
As visual aids, flip charts can’t be beat. They’re simple, inexpensive, low-tech, portable. They require no electrical outlets, batteries, or perplexing software. They can be easily and quickly prepared and produced, without the aid of expensive graphic artists or computer programmers. This alone is a comfort to the technophobes among us. A flip chart says, “Relax!” No need to be scared off by the notion of “interactive technology” when all that’s required is a big user-friendly pad of paper with colorful letters on it.
STRATEGIC ADVANTAGES:
If you know how to use them intelligently, flip charts offer enormous psychological advantages for facilitating resolution between disputing parties.
Flip charts focus attention. Instead of disputing parties staring at their own individual documents on the table, they can simultaneously focus on a shared notepad.
Flip charts increase retention. It is said that we remember a quarter of what we hear, half of what we see, and two-thirds of what we hear AND see. Participants more easily remember concepts, ideas and key points that are written down or symbolized in pictures.
Flip charts provide a permanent record, which can be referred back to during every stage of mediation. For frustrated parties who feel no progress is being made, flip charts are tangible evidence to the contrary. It is a visual record of mutually generated ideas. Its lack of bias honors and respects all participants’ contributions.
Flip charts not only record and review ideas, but also pose questions, stimulate brainstorming, help make action plans, and document incremental steps toward solutions and consensus.
Unlike the legal briefs that may accompany litigants, flip charts focus less on past problems and more on future solutions. At the start, it’s a blank page, a clean slate. It says, “Our job is to start afresh and fill it in.”
Symbolically, a flip chart represents “shared interest and goals.” Because it belongs to all parties, it encourages constructive joint participation. It says, “Everybody owns this problem, and everyone will contribute to the solution.” In fact, you might try relinquishing the markers to the disputants.
“One of the key elements of androgogy [adult learning] is active involvement of the learners,” says Lucas. “There are two ways to involve your audience: solicit ideas and capture them on a flip chart yourself, or pass out markers and let participants do their own problem solving and writing. Take yourself out of the role of presenter or expert and move into new role of facilitator. This is less intimidating, since you build on the knowledge of the group, and avoid talking down to or controlling others.”
DOs & DON’Ts:
Use the most visible colors: black and blue. Red is the most appealing color, but it is best used as an accent color than as a primary color. Avoid brown, pink, yellow. Use two colors for variety, but don’t make the common mistake of using a separate color for each party – that only underscores differences at a time when you’re trying to portray shared concerns. So, your best color combos are: red/black, red/blue, or blue/black. Three colors are too confusing.
Write neatly, in uppercase block letters. Use keywords, abbreviations.
For lists, use bulletpoints (asterisks, checkmarks, arrows), NOT numbers. Numbers can incorrectly (and detrimentally) be interpreted as ranking , rating, or weighing ideas or priorities. Sometimes you can make a stack of bulletpoints first, with items to be filled in by participants – challenging them to wring out more ideas: “Good. What else?”
Encourage group ownership of the process. Don’t draw a vertical line down the middle of the page, demonstrating opposing positions. That’s like using a different color for each participant – it only helps them become more entrenched, and focused on arguing the merits of their individual perspectives, as opposed to stimulating collective “groupthink.”
Tear off and tape each finished page to the wall, for easy reference – and to enable participants to be enveloped by their own forward progress.
Stuck? Write open-ended questions at the top of a page, and let participants take turns filling in answers. Keep the gray matter spinning. Request specificity, concrete ideas. The mere act of writing down a solution for common viewing enhances personal accountability.
To stimulate brainstorming, remind everyone that the flip chart is a work in progress, not a final document. Proposing a solution is not necessarily agreeing to it.
Use flip charts to record action steps – who will do what and when? Assign accountability for small tasks between sessions.
Use pictures. You don’t have to be Van Gogh – doodles are fine. Again, creating and viewing graphics engages the brain in the creative process – and can even “lighten up” a tense atmosphere.
RECOMMENDED READING:
Flip Charts : How to Draw Them and How to Use Them,
Richard C. Brandt (Jossey-Bass, 1986; 88 pages)
Flip Chart Power: Secrets of the Masters,
Bonnie E. Burn (Jossey-Bass, 1996; 134 pp.)
The Big Book of Flip Charts,
Robert William Lucas (McGraw Hill, 2000; 258pp)
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Don't Let The Gray Hair Fool You
A good mediator asks fact-finding questions, but not in the same spirit as a cross-examining attorney or judge. The goal is not to assign blame nor to catch people in inconsistencies nor to determine who is right or wrong or who has the stronger or more compelling argument.
As I tell my mediation clients upfront: “Don’t let the gray hair fool you. I’m not a wise man. I’m here to help you find the wisdom within YOU. When it comes to YOUR fight, you each have more knowledge and intelligence than I ever will. YOU are the ones who have to live with the outcome, not me, and so YOU will decide your own fate.”
My job is to help them explore common ground – shared interests and concerns that can result in collaboratively produced and mutually satisfying resolutions. I may be neutral but I am not impartial, I explain, because I advocate for both people – or, more accurately, I help them advocate for themselves and for each other.
As I tell my mediation clients upfront: “Don’t let the gray hair fool you. I’m not a wise man. I’m here to help you find the wisdom within YOU. When it comes to YOUR fight, you each have more knowledge and intelligence than I ever will. YOU are the ones who have to live with the outcome, not me, and so YOU will decide your own fate.”
My job is to help them explore common ground – shared interests and concerns that can result in collaboratively produced and mutually satisfying resolutions. I may be neutral but I am not impartial, I explain, because I advocate for both people – or, more accurately, I help them advocate for themselves and for each other.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Tell It To The Judge?
One major obstacle to mediation is the concern that self-tailored resolutions won’t be “legally binding,” coupled with the usually unfounded fear that the other person will ignore or violate the resulting non-judicial agreement.
To these worriers, I offer the paradoxical fact that people are more likely to honor and abide by decisions of their own making than by those imposed upon them by an authority figure like a judge.
The other common obstacle in getting people to mediate is that they both desperately want to "tell it to the judge," a holdover from the childhood threat of "telling Mom" or "telling the teacher," the difference being that the judge really doesn't care about you!
Judges are busy, and besides, they've heard it all before. Your sob story may be terribly compelling to you, but it's old news to them, and they've got plenty more stories where yours came from -- there aren't enough ears in the entire judicial system to hear even a fraction of them.
Still, fueled by the popularity of courtroom "reality shows," disputants fantasize that a stern authority figure will sympathize with their suffering and wag a scolding finger at their nemesis -- which is as unlikely a scenario as you're likely to see in a real-life courthouse. As far as judges are concerned, you're both wrong for wasting their precious time -- and their job is to somehow sort out and throw a bone to whoever's less wrong, and get rid of both of you as quickly as possible.
Besides, the judge doesn’t know you, doesn’t share your depth of passion in your situation, doesn’t have the time or inclination to explore avenues of resolution. His primary goal is not “justice,” but rather to clear the cumbersome docket, quickly and efficiently, with what usually amounts to snap judgments, with predictably unsatisfying outcomes.
As a homework exercise, I send doubters to the courthouse and instruct them to wait in the corridor outside any courtroom and ask the emerging parties, “Who won?” … and count how few people raise their hand.
Bottom line: if you really want to be heard, if you really want your thoughts and opinions and feelings to matter, if you want to shape your destiny and not put it in the hands of an uncaring stranger, then do yourself a favor and see a mediator, not a judge.
To these worriers, I offer the paradoxical fact that people are more likely to honor and abide by decisions of their own making than by those imposed upon them by an authority figure like a judge.
The other common obstacle in getting people to mediate is that they both desperately want to "tell it to the judge," a holdover from the childhood threat of "telling Mom" or "telling the teacher," the difference being that the judge really doesn't care about you!
Judges are busy, and besides, they've heard it all before. Your sob story may be terribly compelling to you, but it's old news to them, and they've got plenty more stories where yours came from -- there aren't enough ears in the entire judicial system to hear even a fraction of them.
Still, fueled by the popularity of courtroom "reality shows," disputants fantasize that a stern authority figure will sympathize with their suffering and wag a scolding finger at their nemesis -- which is as unlikely a scenario as you're likely to see in a real-life courthouse. As far as judges are concerned, you're both wrong for wasting their precious time -- and their job is to somehow sort out and throw a bone to whoever's less wrong, and get rid of both of you as quickly as possible.
Besides, the judge doesn’t know you, doesn’t share your depth of passion in your situation, doesn’t have the time or inclination to explore avenues of resolution. His primary goal is not “justice,” but rather to clear the cumbersome docket, quickly and efficiently, with what usually amounts to snap judgments, with predictably unsatisfying outcomes.
As a homework exercise, I send doubters to the courthouse and instruct them to wait in the corridor outside any courtroom and ask the emerging parties, “Who won?” … and count how few people raise their hand.
Bottom line: if you really want to be heard, if you really want your thoughts and opinions and feelings to matter, if you want to shape your destiny and not put it in the hands of an uncaring stranger, then do yourself a favor and see a mediator, not a judge.
Mediate, Don't Litigate
More people are learning to MEDIATE rather than LITIGATE. Why? It's much faster and cheaper. In this age of budget cuts, courtrooms are overloaded with complex cases that judges simply do not have time to consider. So, rather than spend tens of thousands of dollars to pursue lawsuits that can drag on for years, you can hire a mediator to help resolve your issues, usually in a few weeks, for a fraction of the cost.
Here's the best part: Instead of relying on a judge to issue a final decision that will make everyone sad and poorer, disputants or adversaries can count on a mediator to help them reach an amicable solution and agreement OF THEIR OWN MAKING, which guarantees that it will be much easier for everyone to live with.
Mediation is ideal for those caught in any conflict or disagreement -- whether it's a dispute between landlord/tenant, neighbor/neighbor, merchant/consumer, employer/employee, business partners, family members, or a disagreement over a contract. Issues can pertain to all fields, from real estate and insurance to personal injury and the entertainment industry.
It's not that lawyers are "bad," it's just that they are trained to do their client's bidding, and are being paid top dollar to "come out on top" and prevail at all costs. They are not schooled or professionally inclined to pursue win/win strategies, or solutions that are in the collective best interest. Instead, their reputations rise or fall depending on how effectively they battle the opposing party into submission, and declare victory.
Mediators take a different approach. They are trained and conditioned to seek peaceful forward-looking solutions that everyone can live with. They know that the value of healing far exceeds the price of protracted war and the longterm suffering that results from the pursuit of a one-sided "victory."
Here's the best part: Instead of relying on a judge to issue a final decision that will make everyone sad and poorer, disputants or adversaries can count on a mediator to help them reach an amicable solution and agreement OF THEIR OWN MAKING, which guarantees that it will be much easier for everyone to live with.
Mediation is ideal for those caught in any conflict or disagreement -- whether it's a dispute between landlord/tenant, neighbor/neighbor, merchant/consumer, employer/employee, business partners, family members, or a disagreement over a contract. Issues can pertain to all fields, from real estate and insurance to personal injury and the entertainment industry.
It's not that lawyers are "bad," it's just that they are trained to do their client's bidding, and are being paid top dollar to "come out on top" and prevail at all costs. They are not schooled or professionally inclined to pursue win/win strategies, or solutions that are in the collective best interest. Instead, their reputations rise or fall depending on how effectively they battle the opposing party into submission, and declare victory.
Mediators take a different approach. They are trained and conditioned to seek peaceful forward-looking solutions that everyone can live with. They know that the value of healing far exceeds the price of protracted war and the longterm suffering that results from the pursuit of a one-sided "victory."
Alternative Dispute Resolution
This blog is about how to resolve disagreements peacefully so that both people are reasonably happy with the result, without harming or suing each other. The fancy phrase for this is “alternative dispute resolution.” It doesn’t involve the planet’s two most prevalent ways to settle disputes: violence and litigation. Instead, nobody gets hurt; nobody loses. It does require the disputants themselves to use their own ingenuity and resources to arrive at a solution, and not transfer their power to an authority figure (such as a cop or a judge) to govern their lives for them. The person who helps facilitate this process, enabling warriors to satisfactorily achieve peace without imposing his or her own will on the proceedings, is a neutral third party called a “mediator.”
Unfortunately, we live in a time and place where the first resort of bickering neighbors is to recruit surrogate pugilists and gladiators – threatening to “call the cops” or “tell it to the judge” – rather than work out differences in a sane, non-violent, productive manner. We impulsively retain lawyers, who are trained to zealously advocate for their client, right or wrong, with one goal in mind: to win. The legal arena encourages harassment, bullying, intimidation, threats, and countless maneuvers that are deliberately designed to fan the flames and prolong the conflict (thus escalating the number of billable hours).
Paradoxically, few would reflexively hire a mediator to sort out differences and seek a forward-looking, mutually viable solution – despite the fact that mediation consumes a fraction of the time and cost (not to mention mental anguish and uncertainty) of traditional litigation.
Fighting is a necessary and useful component of real life; differences of opinion are a good thing. So the primary goal of this blog is to teach a new generation how to engage in battle constructively, not destructively. In short, how to fight nicely.
Unfortunately, we live in a time and place where the first resort of bickering neighbors is to recruit surrogate pugilists and gladiators – threatening to “call the cops” or “tell it to the judge” – rather than work out differences in a sane, non-violent, productive manner. We impulsively retain lawyers, who are trained to zealously advocate for their client, right or wrong, with one goal in mind: to win. The legal arena encourages harassment, bullying, intimidation, threats, and countless maneuvers that are deliberately designed to fan the flames and prolong the conflict (thus escalating the number of billable hours).
Paradoxically, few would reflexively hire a mediator to sort out differences and seek a forward-looking, mutually viable solution – despite the fact that mediation consumes a fraction of the time and cost (not to mention mental anguish and uncertainty) of traditional litigation.
Fighting is a necessary and useful component of real life; differences of opinion are a good thing. So the primary goal of this blog is to teach a new generation how to engage in battle constructively, not destructively. In short, how to fight nicely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
