A neighbor/neighbor dispute went to court and then to mediation.

One neighbor was suing the other for medical expenses from a dog bite. The suing neighbor was in his back yard with his two young children when they heard, then saw the neighbor’s dog trying to get under their fence. The man ran to the fence and tried to stop the dog from coming into his yard by pushing it with his hands and in so doing experienced a serious dog bite. 

But the owners of the dog saw the incident differently. Having lived in their home for decades, they were alone, as their children had all grown and no longer lived with them. The dog owners felt the neighbors had been standoffish and unfriendly with boys who continually pestered their dog, which was a small toy beagle. In a private caucus during mediation, they admitted the dog was considred family and were very afraid this incident would result in losing yet another family member.  

While we can’t predict what a judge would have done, it’s a reasonable guess the outcome would have resulted in favor of awarding the medical expenses for the man who was bitten. But we do know the outcome of the mediation because several hours in the neighbors shared their feelings openly. Their agreement was to cover medical costs and share expenses to improve the fence. The parties later told the mediator they became involved in each other’s lives by watching their homes while either was away and even got together for cookouts. 

So, what made such change possible? The neighbors just needed the safe forum mediation provides to share their feelings openly and honestly.

In the past I’ve written some observations on reasons individuals give for not mediating their disputes.

To continue the discussion, I interviewed several major corporate and non-profit organizations who told me why they too won’t use mediation to resolve disagreements. Of course, their comments provide only their opinions and are not scientifically supported, but they are insightful nonetheless. 

For the most part, the reason all who I spoke with shared, was that to mediate a dispute meant giving up control. Instead, they believed it is more effective to argue, confront, and litigate. One even said that being perceived as powerful was more important than winning, because in the long term that is not a loss. 

How did these successful companies come to this conclusion? Surprisingly, one observed that individualism is highly valued in the United States and as a result, we are less concerned about the needs of others. Another attributed an unwillingness to mediate as being contrary to the dominant competitive nature of organizations. It would seem fair to say this point of view exhibited a high degree of narcissism or self-absorption. 

The true narcissist has an over-inflated view of themselves, a need to be admired, and a low understanding or recognition of how others feel. They demonstrate those traits by prefering confrontation and litigation.

To counter, I mentioned the resilience of a number of nonviolent peace advocates who changed societies. One discounted such examples by suggesting nonviolence is just another way to exercise power. 

I believe to encourage mediation when met with such resistence, the broader issues that concern all must be addressed. Our personal and professional relationships would benefit from learning to respect others, be open to developing trust, and place value on collaboration for better resolutions and stronger relationships.