A Tale of Two Kiddies ... and One Orange

LISTEN! (8:40)

"Fight Nicely" 3-Act Play Script (pdf): $9.99 .
An entertaining lesson in the art of interest-based negotiation, as depicted in a common family feud. Perfect for mediators, mediation trainees, parents, teachers, and smart kids. Volume discounts for classrooms, please inquire: JerryLazar(at)msn(dot)com.

ACTING CREDITS:
Narrator: Mark Neely
Jonah: Jonah Lazar
Maia/Baby Sis: Molly Chapman
Mom/Grandmom: Jill Holden
Dad: Jerry Lazar
PRODUCTION CREDITS:
TheGarage247
Audio Engineer: Brittany Riffe
Facility Manager: Lori Koebel
With gratitude and thanks to all!

Apologies vs. Actions

According to this LifeWire report, for many people, a promise never to repeat the offense often constitutes the most important aspect of an apology.

Nick Smith, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of New Hampshire and author of "I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies," adds:

"The ultimate meaning of apologies, like the meaning of promises, depends on future behavior, and therefore we cannot conclusively judge them at the moment they are spoken."

Playing the blame game or not owning up to one's mistakes are the worst ways to apologize, Smith says. Phrases like "I am sorry that X bothers you" and "I am sorry you feel that way" won't win you any points in the forgiveness department.

Food Fight

Conflicts between hip new bars and restaurants, and the neighborhood residents who have to endure their late-night noise and traffic, are all too common. Such has been the case for the past four years with Lola, a soul-food restaurant in Manhattan's SoHo district, now in jeopardy of losing its liquor license because of disgruntled neighbors.

Props to community newspaper The Villager for investigating the situation, and finding that, in a classic breakdown of communications, all parties were misinterpreting the actions and intentions of the other. And for wisely recommending professional mediation to resolve all issues.

Initially, residents circulated a flier warning Lola would cause “diminishing property values,” “sleepless nights,” “increased traffic,” “increased tourism,” “more dirt” and “more crime.” Fearing the worst, Lola’s owners felt the opposition was at least partly racially motivated. But it seems to us the resistance was more about quality of life in a neighborhood become chronically oversaturated with nightlife businesses.

Lola is a high-end establishment that will offer quality soul, R&B and gospel music ... This is a classy place. We’re sure neighbors will thoroughly enjoy the whole experience of both Lola’s cuisine and its wonderful music.

Yet, it’s also clear that neighbors’ quality of life and right to enjoy being in their own apartments in the evenings is utterly nonnegotiable.

The two sides might have to meet halfway. We feel confident this dispute can be worked out, and that sweet music will someday play at Lola — for all to enjoy.

Conflict Coaching

Illuminating discussion, on a blog devoted to anger management control, of one-on-one "conflict coaching," a service that can prove to be especially useful pre- and post-mediation.

Unlike mediators, conflict coaches deal with only one of the parties -- so, ideally, each mediation participant would have his or her own coach.

Conflict coaching is a one on one voluntary and confidential process that combines ADR and coaching principles. It is at its very essence, an individualized method for helping people effectively engage in conflict.

A few basic similarities between the fields of ADR and coaching, include the basic premises of self-determination and confidentiality. While some of the techniques and practitioner’s skills are similar, there are some major differences.

An important distinction is that the goals of those who participate in conflict coaching may not only be about resolving conflict. Rather, individuals seeking coaching (referred to as coachees in this presentation), may want to work on ways to prevent a dispute from unnecessarily escalating, to improve their competency in conflict management, to develop stronger communication skills for a difficult conversation and other objectives, that are often more about managing, than resolving.

You are the 'Me' in Mediation

As you know, I love when the mainstream media stumbles wide-eyed upon this wondrous peacemaking process called mediation. The Ventura County Star's Cynthia Overweg did an excellent job of reporting on the Ventura Center for Dispute Settlement, a nonprofit, countywide organization based in Camarillo, run by my former SCMA colleague, Sandra Rubio.

Go read her colorful accounts of successful mediations yourself. I think my favorite quote is from a mediator, describing how -- in contrast to a courtroom, where decisions are made for you by a total stranger, and you are forced to live with the outcome even if you hate it -- the voluntary, self-determined mediation process puts participants in the driver's seat:

"You are the 'me' in mediation," he tells prospective participants . "You can control the ride. So how many want to take a test drive?"

You'd be a fool to say no.

Divorce Mediation Trumps Divorce Litigation

The Wall Street Journal celebrates the advantages of mediated divorces over litigated divorces, especially when children are involved, citing several notable studies:

Constance Ahrons's 20-year look at 173 children from 98 divorced families showed
that when divorced parents were able to maintain a civil and at least minimally
cooperative relationship with each other, the children experienced no long-term
problems associated with the divorce. But when parents remained in conflict or
totally disengaged from each other, their children continued to be distressed
even 20 years later.

And this:

In a 12-year follow-up of couples randomly assigned to either mediation or litigated divorce ...as little as five to six hours of mediation had powerful long-term effects. Parents who took part in mediation settled their disputes in half the time of parents who used litigation, and they were much more likely, even 12 years later, to jointly discuss children's discipline, moral training, school performance and vacation plans. Nonresidential parents with mediated divorces maintained much more contact with their children than those who had litigated.

Dollars and sense:

The average cost of a mediated divorce is less than $7,000 ... and about $78,000 for a fully litigated divorce.

And it's not just the financial toll. When a parent maximizes his or her emotional position by undermining a child's respect for the other parent, this "victory" carries long-term costs.

Researcher Paul Amato notes that children who report being put in the middle of their parents' problems are less likely to be close to either parent as they age.

Cooperative divorces deny clients the short-range satisfaction of "beating" their exes, and they deprive attorneys of a lucrative source of income. But the benefits clearly outweigh these costs.

Take Me Out of the Ballgame

Last night Obama claimed victory with high-minded grace, while Clinton was again equivocating and dissembling when she should have been conceding. Obama's message was inclusive -- complimenting his opponent, and seeking common ground on which the party could march forward.

Around the time this was happening, I was at a Dodgers game with my son, where he was treated to his first pile-on brawl. I remember the first time I had witnessed this up-close, and marveled not only at the insanity of it, but also at the bloodlust it brought out in fans.

In this particular instance, it started as a shoving match between a catcher and an opposing batter. Then one took a swing at the other, clearing (in rapid sequence) the benches, the dugout, the outfield. Players from both teams swarmed toward homeplate to dive onto the sea of squirming uniforms. Eventually teammates pulled each other off the ridiculous heap, the original two combatants were tossed out of the game (and probably fined), the field was cleared, and eventually the game resumed.

Meanwhile, fans were cheering, hooting, hollering, hissing -- in short, gleefully going nuts. They loved it! I'm embarassed to report that my son was among those celebrants.

It had nothing and everything to do with baseball. After the game, sportscasters commented on how the violent display proved that the teams still had spark and energy -- ostensibly a favorable sign.

Driving home, I imagined Obama and Clinton as opposing ballplayers, and amused myself with trying to envision how they would behave in such a situation. I also imagined myself, standing in the outfield and witnessing my teammates and their rivals charging full-speed toward the mayhem so they could get a piece of the action. I'd like to think I wouldn't have any part of this nonsense -- even if it meant that I'd be the cheese standing alone. I could easily see feisty Hillary coming out swinging. But then I envisioned Obama serenely maintaining his stance on third base, calmly rising above the fray, the consummate peacemaker bemusedly shaking his head as he marveled at the "silly season."

Did you see his speech last night? Whether he came to bury or to praise, he did it with his typical eloquence and genuine class, the likes of which we rarely see these days.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign. She has made history not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight. I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota and I congratulate her on the race she has run throughout this contest.

We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning -- even in the face of tough odds -- is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency -- an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country -- and we will win that fight -- she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Kinda makes you proud, after a long dry spell, to again be able to say: Only in America!

Peer Mediation

Heartwarming video story about my former employer, L.A. County Bar Association's Dispute Resolution Services, and their peer mediation program. The problem is that the meritorious program is in only a few schools, when it should be in ALL of them! The funds allow for only a couple of on-site trainers, when there should be an army of them. This is our best hope for teaching peace to the next generation. This program has been around for 20 years now, with outstanding results, and yet instead of growing, its budget keeps getting slashed. Very dispiriting, especially as campuses become increasingly violent. Every lawyer in L.A. should be required to contribute $100 per year to keep this program alive and flourishing.

Verdict: Mediation Saves Time & Money

Nice to see the mainstream press stumble upon the concept of mediation. Someday mediation will be as commonplace as lawsuits, and hence not newsworthy, but until then we should be grateful whenever a reporter discovers its existence, marvels at its superiority to litigation, and shares those observations with readers.

Here's reporter Paula Schleis in the Akron Beacon Journal :

Look in the Akron Yellow Pages under ''attorneys'' and you'll find a section so thick it has its own color code.

Look under ''mediators'' and you'll find a grand total of six listings.

Read into that what you will, but it might explain why mediators scratch their heads and wonder why more folks drain their bank accounts chasing costly litigation when a thoughtful afternoon with a mediator might resolve their problem.

Great in-depth story follows, with lots of interviews and examples. Go read it!

Stonequake Redux

More to this apology than meets the eye. Or ear.

After seeming genuinely contrite, now the star (who has been banned for life --onscreen and offscreen -- from the Shanghai film fest) is, by turns, irritated, hedging, backpedaling, defensive.

“I misspoke for four seconds and it’s become an international incident.”

It seems that the apology had emanated not from Sharon Stone herself, but rather from Dior, with whom she has a modeling contract. The company, fearing consumer backlash, hastily hammered out a contrite statment on her behalf. Stone scoffed and resisted.

But then she viewed a videotape of her own remarks (ironically about karmic retribution) -- and understood for the first time what all the fuss is about. Lesson: if we could only hear what we sound like to others, we'd tread more cautiously -- and more respectfully.

“I had absolutely no intention of saying that, which I did say,” she said, “and
now, looking at it on the tape, I look like a complete ding-dong.”

UPDATE: Who the hell cares what Sharon Stone has to say about China anyway?

Bonjour!

We've got international interest in our TV show, thanks to the Réseau Médiation blog (Les dernières nouvelles, infos, idées sur la médiation, la négociation et la gestion des conflits).

Even if you're not entirely sure what it means, you've got to admit it looks impressive... and to auteur Dominique Foucart, we say, "Merci!"

C’est encore à Victoria Pynchon et à son blog Settle It Now! que je dois cette nouvelle: une émission de TV en direct qui va proposer de vivre des médiations. C’est aux Etats-Unis, bien entendu. Mais cela aurait-il du sens chez nous ?

Lorsqu’il s’agit de promouvoir la médiation, la question de savoir si tous les moyens sont bons doit être posée. Pour Jerry Lazar, médiateur à Los Angeles, la réponse permet en tout cas d’aller jusqu’à amener des clients et leur problème sur un plateau de télévision et à les faire participer à une médiation en direct. Autant pour la confidentialité des débats…

Daprès l’article publié par Victoria, le numéro 0 de la série a été tourné avec des acteurs, mais la série proprement dite devrait faire appel aux personnes qui sont réellement dans le conflit. L’émission commence par une présentation formelle du processus de médiation, suivie de la médiation proprement dite.

Cela me rappelle furieusement le succès de “Ca va se savoir”, la version francophone de “The Jerry Springer Show”. Pour rappel, le principe de la version originale est de faire venir sur un plateau, “à l’insu les uns des autres”, les protagonistes d’un drame (le plus souvent familial) le plus sordide possible. Au plus les protagonistes rejoignent le plateau, au plus le caractère sordide de la situation apparait, et au plus les acteurs se retrouvent en confrontation. Dans la version française, ce sont des acteurs qui prennent des rôles qui ne viennent pas de la réalité, mais ont été inventés par des scénaristes professionnels.

Dans quelle mesure une telle approche peut-elle aider à promouvoir notre métier de médiateur? Un apport important d’une telle approche est qu’elle donne une meilleure vue aux médiés potentiels de certains points qui sont aujourd’hui des freins à la médiation, comme par exemple que “la médiation est faite pour les gens qui veulent se réconcilier”, ou comme la magie du passage d’un combat de position à un travail de co-créativité. Par contre, la mise à mal du caractère confidentiel des débats me parait totalement inacceptable. Existe-t-il une “voie du milieu”, c’est sans doute à explorer.

Je vois par exemple deux possibilités de promouvoir dans les médias le processus de médiation: utiliser des cas proches de cas vécus, mais les faire jouer par des acteurs (ou mieux, par de bons improvisateurs), ou dans une approche plus “Pierre Bellemare”, faire un travail de conteur de médiations.

Voilà de quoi faire vibrer nos petites cellules grises.

Joyce Kilmer Weeps

If two neighbors are fighting over the placement of a tree on their property line, they can seek sane remedies in mediation.

Or they can tell it to the judge, who will issue a Solomon-like decision.

Sigh. It's always the trees that suffer.

Obama's Global Diplomacy

Mediator extraordinaire Ken Cloke paints an optimistic picture of what international diplomacy and global dispute resolution strategies might look like in an Obama administration:

Consider a key element in the Obama campaign and one of the key questions for many voters – should the US negotiate with its enemies?

Most mediators, I think, would immediately answer, “Yes.” We understand that negotiation is based on differences; that negotiating doesn’t mean agreeing; that negotiating draws people away from violent alternatives; and that negotiation is preferable to power-based solutions such as war and terrorism. Notice, however, how use of the word “enemy” automatically builds into the question an assumption of implacable hostility and an implication that negotiation must fail. To reverse this assumption and consider not just whether, but how we should negotiate with our opponents, we need to answer a number of questions.

Those questions, which Cloke parses brilliantly, are:

1. How does effective diplomacy and negotiation differ from "appeasement?"
2. How can America best negotiate our future?
3. What does capable international diplomacy look like - what are positive
examples?

He concludes:

As mediators, we need to recognize that we also are global citizens, and responsible by virtue of our knowledge and experience for helping to save the planet. We need to weigh in on the important issues of the day that directly touch on our expertise, including not just who we negotiate with, but how we negotiate and why. Without it, Obama and the perspective he represents may succumb to those who think patriotism requires war and the slaughter of innocents. The time to speak up is now.

Another Apology, Another Lesson

Like those pastors who attributed AIDS and Hurricane Katrina to divine wrath towards homosexuality and hedonism, actress Sharon Stone stepped in it when she suggested that the horrific Chinese earthquake was karmic retribution for mistreating Tibetans.

And now she's apologized.

"Due to my inappropriate words and acts during the interview, I feel deeply sorry and sad about hurting Chinese people...I am willing to take part in the relief work of China's earthquake, and wholly devote myself to helping affected Chinese people."

But the best part of the story, underscoring the necessity of humility in pursuing the path toward peace, is buried at the bottom:

Stone also said she received a letter from the Tibetan Foundation asking her to help the quake victims. "They wanted to go and be helpful, and that made me cry. It was a big lesson to me that sometimes you have to learn to put your head down and be of service even to people who aren't nice to you," she said.

Conflict Between Conflict Pros

Paradoxically, there's nothing quite as ornery and contentious and divisive as a convention of peacemakers. When I was on the board of the Southern Calfornia Mediation Association, we hired a management consultant to help us assess and re-draft the organization's goals and mission statement, and he confided that it was one of the most difficult organizations with which he had ever worked.

I was reminded of this when (in the comments section of Vickie Pynchon's excellent blog) an Atlanta mediator objected to my mediation-themed reality TV show, on the shaky grounds that mediators should be resolving conflict, not promoting it. Huh? Isn't that the whole point of the show -- to demonstrate a superior method of resolving conflict (in contrast to the myriad Judge shows)? Wouldn't this raise the public's awareness of the mere existence of mediation, and drive clients to our Atlanta friend's doorstep?

Tellingly, he accused me of artificially fanning the flames of dispute for the benefit of ratings, by provoking name-calling... and then proceeded to call me a "conniving producer."

Here's how I responded:

I must object to your notion that mediators should "avoid conflict and confrontation."
You must be joking! Conflict and confrontation is at the heart of what we do. Avoid it? Hardly!

We must confront it head on. Not to argue semantics, but conflict and confrontation, in and of themselves, are not bad things at all. They are the essence of life. We can't always agree with each other, nor should we! It's how we RESOLVE conflict that matters. Mediation is an ideal way to do that. My purpose is to educate Americans so that they don't resort to the two most common ways of resolving dispute -- litigation and violence.

Look at it another way -- conflict and confrontation are inevitable. All those Judge Judy cases are going to happen, no matter what. BUT what if America saw ANOTHER way of resolving those cases? So that the next time they got into a confrontation themselves, they didn't reflexively call a lawyer or a cop, or threaten violence, and instead phoned a mediator?

All we're trying to do is educate people to the existence of mediation, and make them aware that they can get their issues settled more quickly, less expensively, and with far less anguish than heartache than if they explore the traditional venues.

I should think that a practicing mediator would welcome such a daily public service announcement with open arms!

As for our show, all we're doing is portraying mediations as they really happen. And, yes, if people are in mediation, I think we can safely assume that there's a conflict involved. And, yes, sometimes the parties get confrontational. That's the nature of the beast.

But a good mediator facilitates constructive communication and gently guides them away from finger-pointing and name-calling, and toward forward-looking collaborative solutions to their problems.

What exactly is the harm in that?

I question the temperament and judgment of a mediator who labels new ideas "ridiculous" before he even tries to understand them! Hopefully now you can assess this new TV show with an open mind.

I'll leave you with this quote, from my very first blog post: "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."

Peace Psychology

Oprah Magazine provides a good intro to a "new field called peace psychology" -- except for its title ("Let's not fight!") and its opening sentence ("Imagine a world without conflict.").

A world without conflict would be a boring place. Conflict is necessary and good. It's unrealistic to presume that all people will share the same perspective, the same approach, the same desires, the same goals. And as long as there is more than one human on the planet, there will always be fighting -- and that's not a bad thing, either. Fighting is necessary and good.

It's how we fight, and how we resolve conflict, that matters. Anticipating inevitable disagreements, whether between spouses or neighbors or nations, and learning how to peacefully resolve them (without violence or litigation) is the admirable goal to which we should all aspire. And in fact the article outlines invaluable methods of constructive dispute resolution worth adopting and modeling for the next generation.

So go ahead and fight! Just remember to fight nicely.

'The Peacemaker'

Daily Journal reporter Greg Katz did a terrific job today of describing the mediation-themed reality show pilot that TV producer Richard Klinger and I are shopping around. Here are some highlights of his story:





Lazar (left) and Klinger.
Photo by Robert Levins.

FIRST 'JUDGE JUDY' - NOW 'THE PEACEMAKER'?
Two L.A. Mediators Are Shopping a TV Pilot That Would Showcase Their Art
By Greg Katz
Daily Journal Staff Writer

LOS ANGELES - Arbitration already has its own small-screen star in Judge Judy, the feisty former judge who arbitrates small claims cases to the hoots and hollers of a studio audience. Two Los Angeles mediators think it's about time mediation had its own television show, too.

Jerry Lazar and Richard Klinger recently have been shopping around a pilot for "The Peacemaker," a show that would spotlight mediation.

"Its time has really come," Klinger said.

The idea for the show took shape after a speech Lazar made to the Southern California Mediation Association.

Lazar, a former host and producer for the E! television network, went on his usual rant: "The American public has a glut of judge shows. Why aren't there any mediation shows?"

After the speech, Klinger, executive producer of the "Jane Fonda's Workout" video series, approached Lazar and asked whether he had ever tried to put together a mediation television show himself.

They shot the pilot in December.

It opens with a host in suit-and-tie describing the mediation process and explaining that mediation offers a way out of conflict "without the expense and heartache of litigation."

Lazar, who is not a lawyer, doesn't just want to see the show succeed for his own glory, he said. He has a very personal attachment to mediation's success.

He began mediating after he went through long and bitter child custody litigation at the turn of the millennium. When he found out about the alternative provided by mediation, he decided to dedicate himself to it.

After volunteering as a mediator on the Los Angeles County Superior Court's pro bono panel, he spent time as associate director of California Lawyers for the Arts' Santa Monica community mediation center and as program manager of the Los Angeles County Bar's Dispute Resolution Services.

"If there's any good I've done in this world, it's pointing people toward mediation," Lazar said.

Klinger, a former Montana assistant attorney general who recently started his own mediation practice, said he hopes the show will help private mediators get more business by increasing awareness of mediation's benefits.

"If this was on the air now ... it would promote mediation," Klinger said.

But the show has not proved an instant winner with television executives.

"Most TV executives have only the vaguest idea of what [mediation] is," Lazar said. "One guy said, 'I don't understand. Are we talking about the same thing here? Hostage negotiation?'"

Lazar said he tries to emphasize the personal drama of mediations - a combination, as he puts it, of "Jerry Springer" and "Dr. Phil" - but realizes it is difficult to explain. He said other attempts to develop mediation shows have failed. "You go in, you pitch, you sell them, and they say, 'You know, that sounds really great - but if you can come in with a judge show, we'd let you do it in a minute,'" he said. "I tell them, 'If you saw a real mediation, it's powerful stuff. People are transformed ..."

The producers ... are working out kinks in preparation to re-shoot the pilot. One important change they will make is using caucusing in the show's mediations, a term for separating the parties to different rooms and letting the mediator go back and forth between them. Then they plan to pitch the show to networks again.

"We know they're looking for something to break that judge show mold in that judge show time slot," Klinger said. Watch your back, Judge Judy.

My Neighbor Is A Jerk

Is your neighbor really annoying? Would you like to put an end to the bickering and/or passive-aggressive games you're both playing? At no cost? Email me the details and I'll tell you about a free program that will put an end to your misery.

How Not to Apologize

Lacking veracity, sincerity, awareness of wrongdoing, offer of retribution -- and not aimed at those most hurt by the original remark (whether its offense was intended or not):



Frankly I think her RFK reference was misinterpreted and the reaction overblown. But given that a huge number of people took offense, and for a variety of reasons found it ominous and hurtful and even a veiled threat, here was an opportunity for her to display true leadership skills and calm the storm. Watch how she failed.

What the World Needs Now

"It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy... It is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions." Amen!