I am a strong advocate of everyone learning mediation skills. A person doesn’t need to become a formally trained mediator to reap ther benefits.

Recently, science-based self-help books author Amy Alkon wrote an opinion piece for The Los Angeles Times (September 21, 2018). She enrolled in the Los Angeles city attorney’s training program for volunteer mediators. She admits that her idea about mediation before taking the training program was that she would learn to become a “Sister Socrates,” making decisions for people to live by.

She quickly learned (as do most of the people in my own mediation training classes) that in mediation that’s not the case. In most forms of mediation disputing parties come up with their own solutions.

In the training program, people learn the “tools” of mediation. Alkon relates three that were particularly meaningful to her:

1) That while conflict can be toxic, it also presents the opportunity to develop more harmonious relationships

2) That mediators foster an environment where the parties can communicate

3) That mediators help participants shift from “positions” to “interests,” that is, from specific demands to underlying motivations.

Alkon then makes a statement I have heard from so many of people who have completed mediation training with me: “I’ve experienced so many benefits from using the techniques in my own life.”

She relates that at a recent reception a close friend publicly revealed the political opinions of a mutual friend. She was horrified that the opinions were revealed in such a manner and admitted that before completing the mediation training she would have judgmentally and aggressively confronted her friend for doing so. That could have affected their relationship among other possible negative outcomes. But having completed the mediation training, she realized that confronting him would’ve only led to a conflict. Alkon said she took the friend aside and said, “Hey, question for you: Do you think maybe our friend told you his views in confidence, figuring you’d keep them that way? His response? “Yeah. You’re right. Shouldn’t have done that. Thank you.”

Most people who complete mediation training with me, don’t actually go on to become full-time mediators. But most tell me they use the tools with their families and during their everyday lives. I get great satisfaction from sharing the tools that anyone can use to reduce levels of conflict.

I’ve shared observations of what behaviors have gotten people into conflict. I’ve discussed transcribing oral understandings, sharing “bad news” early and misrepresentations and misperceptions.

In this posting I’ll suggest one that might seem a bit strange at first: how conflict can result in relationships when one party has complete legal right to their position.  Being “legally right” doesn’t protect you from conflict.

Several decades ago a farmer, who is since retired, had granted an easement and right-of-way to a natural gas pipeline company. The original easement granted the company full right to replace the pipeline when it deemed it necessary to do so. No notification nor additional compensation to the landowner was required in that original agreement. After a number of years the company determined it was necessary to replace and upgrade the pipeline. They held public sessions to explain the need for the work and to decide the best time of year to do it so they could avoid inconveniencing the farmers as little as possible. Additionally, the company published notices in local newspapers explaining the need for the replacement and detailing the work to be done.

Over the years the farmer became upset whenever he saw company employees on his land monitoring the pipeline. When it came time to replace the pipeline, he saw a survey team on his property and confronted them. The surveyors identified themselves and explained what they were doing. The farmer perceived the surveyors to be rude and belligerent.

Later, after the pipeline had been replaced, the farmer filed a complaint against the pipeline company. He contended the company did not return the top soil to its original condition. He contended he would suffer crop loss unless the top soil was reworked to its original state.

In mediation the representatives of the pipeline company shared copies of the original easement and right-of-way, records of public sessions and copies of notices published in the newspapers. They also shared photographs of the property before and after the work. They contended that not only were they “legally” in the right, the company had in fact gone far beyond what was legally required to work with all the landowners in the area, including this one.

Could the company have avoided this conflict? From the discussion in the mediation, it became clear that if it had treated this farmer more as an individual and accorded him more personal attention, he probably would not have been so distraught.  I’ll leave it to the reader to consider if it was worth the time and money for the company to put in that extra effort. Even when one party has full legal rights, the other party may create and sustain a long lasting and expensive conflict.