Victimology 101: Helping the Victim in Conflict Resolution

Distinguishing Between Sympathy and Empathy

"The mill cannot grind with the water that's past". (George Herbert, d. 1633)

It is a fact that in many conflict resolution settings, such as mediations or settlement conferences, you will experience someone cloaked in the mantle of what I refer to as "victimology". Regardless of the nature of his experience, i.e., from the most horrific to the merely inconvenient, he is lost in the victim paradigm. This means he either cannot -- or will not -- advance from that position. Or, if he's not lost, per se, he's using his victim hood, consciously or unconsciously, as a negotiation tactic. In my experience, this can present a difficult and unwieldy situation for all involved.

On the one hand, you don't want to appear unsympathetic and cold-hearted. On the other, it's important that you be able to navigate your path somehow through the conflict to ultimate resolution. What lies in between?

First, note the difference between the notions of sympathy and empathy. Sympathy occurs when one shows sadness or regret, commiseration, for another's position or experience. Empathy, however, activates through your intellectual identification of another's experiences without commiseration. The key to interacting with someone who is in victim mode is to first, take an empathetic stand with him. He must know that you truly understand and are concerned about his experiences.

Ways of Showing Empathy

The idea is to listen very carefully to what the person is saying and then acknowledge his experience, his position, his pain, if appropriate. One of the ways in which this can be done to to paraphrase, in your own words, what he's told you and then repeat them back to him. Not parrot-like, but in a sincere, meaningful way. Another empathic strategy is to ask him appropriate questions about his experience. What was it like? How did he deal with it? How is he coping now?

It is critical to carve out sufficient time for this empathic dialogue. The length of time needed, of course, will depend upon the nature of the person and his circumstances. So, allow sufficient time to establish empathy.... make sure that he has experienced your empathy -- and then move on.

Moving On: Focus on the Present

People who are suffering from "victim hood" are stuck in the past. Generally speaking, they are not fully present. I realize this might sound cold, but from the standpoint of conflict resolution and negotiations, you simply cannot reach resolution in the present moment if one of the parties is stuck in the past. Regardless of whether the "victim" lost a leg, sustained a head injury, or lost a loved one, the fact is that the past cannot be changed. You can only resolve a dispute in the now, the present.

I have found that most people who are "real" victims (for lack of better terminology) do want their losses to be acknowledged and they do want your empathy. And, in very real ways, they really do want to move on, inasmuch as such a thing is possible. In contrast, those who are consciously or unconsciously using their "victim hood" for purposes of negotiation, want to stay in the past as much as possible. They want to keep the focus on themselves and their misfortune(s). This is not conducive to emphasizing what needs to be done now to reach resolution.

There's no Magic Wand

Sometimes the best approach with these people, after the appropriate empathic strategies have been utilized, is to re-focus them in the present. In some mediations I have said that if I had a magic wand I would have used it so that none of the events that transpired had ever occurred. But I don't have such a wand -- and neither do they. We cannot change what took place in the past. We can only face it now and deal with it -- or not.

Put another way: the point of power is in the present moment. We cannot change what transpired. We cannot obviate the events that occurred. We cannot undo the damage that has been sustained. But we can use dialogue to explore some appropriate remedies that may, in some ways, compensate the person thus aggrieved.

And we can only engage in such exploration in the present moment. The present transcends the past as it relates to reaching an accord.

Clear Communication: Avoiding a Serbian Bog in Negotiation

William Shakespeare Had the Right of It

"...And then is heard no more; it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing". [Macbeth V,v,17].

Be honest: does this or does this not describe an experience you've had with someone with whom you were trying to communicate? Perhaps it was a negotiation of some sort, or you were trying to engage in some clear communication with another. (And if there was significant emotion involved, add an entire other layer). At the end of the exchange, assuming you wanted to understand what was being said, you scratch your head, pause, and ask yourself, "What the heck did he just say?" And if you or any other participant does not try to clarify what was said and/or meant, well, then, you have just taken the first step into what I refer to as the Serbian Bog of communication. Just remember: it's easy to get in and very difficult to get out.

Serbian Bog?

This is a descriptive term for communication -- actually conversation, now -- that occurs when one or more persons does not understand what another has said, but continues with the conversation as if she did. The other side is is usually talking rapidly without pause. The other person may rightfully assume that he has been heard and understood, and will likely rely on that assumption. Meanwhile, she will proceed to nod her head, or show with her body language that she is on track with what he's saying. They might continue in this vein for awhile until someone says something that jolts the other into the recognition that there's been a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere. Now, if they care to clarify, they have to return to the beginning of the dialogue to discover where they went wrong. Sometimes when this occurs, one of the participants even accuses the other of being dishonest, as in, "You deliberately tried to mislead me". Good will evaporates, mutual distrust arrives, and emotions may get out of hand. All of this, of course, could have been avoided if one of them had said something like, "I don't understand what you just said. Try it again, I need to comprehend". Or words to that effect....

Serbian Bogs are ubiquitous: board meetings, negotiations, classrooms, and in every environment where one or more persons is hesitant or afraid to ask questions. Why? Not always, but usually, because she or he does not want to appear "less than" the others. Or stupid.

Crawling Out....

I have observed many, many Serbian Bog occurrences in my career. The best approach, obviously, is to prevent them from happening in the first place, although depending upon the participants' personalities and emotions, it's not always possible. Here are some practical strategies for both avoiding the Serbian Bog, or once there, crawling out of it as quickly as possible:

1) Start at the beginning. Make sure the premise(s) that everyone is operating from are correct. State them clearly. Ask for assent and clarification from everyone. Obtain their agreement on the premise(s) before you proceed any further with the negotiation.

2) Ask plenty of questions during the negotiation. As in, "Did I understand you correctly that you will ....", or, "Explain that to me again. I want to make sure I can commit to it". Anecdotally, I have never met anyone who was offended by being questioned by someone else. (Police investigations and cross-examination excluded). Instead, I have found that most people are flattered that you care enough to understand what they say.

3) As you proceed, continue to obtain "buy in" from all of the participants to the negotiation. If there's a snag or stall in the negotiations, try to tackle it as it occurs. If that's not possible, agree that you will address it later in the communication and get their assent.

4) Acknowledge the fact that everyone is doing a good job of staying on track and discussing the difficult issues. Everyone likes acknowledgment.

5) Postpone the negotiation if necessary. If more research, facts, experts or any other objective criteria is pertinent, agree to continue the session to another day and time. Give each other the requisite time within which to gather appropriate facts and figures.

Know that your desire for clear, competent communication will really assist you in avoiding communication's Serbian Bog.

Who Are You, Anyway? - Disingenuous People in Negotiations

All is Not as it May Seem

This posting is about the false fronts, hidden agendas and/or secret motivations that others may possess and try to use -- to your detriment -- in negotiations or conflict settings. Contrary to what our parents told us about being honest, upfront and truthful, many persons' parents skipped that lesson with their kids... apparently. I think that one of the most difficult, yet important aspects of negotiations is to learn to detect, (sometimes it's "just" your gut instinct), the inconsistency or falseness in the other person. It's difficult, I sincerely hope, because most of us come from a place of relative good will toward others, even in a competitive negotiation session. But not all of us. In fact, some people are truly wolves in sheep's clothing, as the saying goes. And they know it. And they don't care to change: they will defend their judgment and position mightily once you call their bluff. And these people maintain their dysfunctional persona even in what we might call "normal" day-to-day interactions. These people must "win" at all costs, even in unimportant exchanges, so that they can feel better than you ... or me.

Who You are Speaks so Loudly I Cannot Hear what You're Saying

Have you ever heard that expression? I confess it had little meaning for me until I began to observe, in earnest, others' behaviors and words, while comparing such to their actions or their history. There are people walking around who will espouse one thing with a perfectly honest face, while their body language, energy or actions belie and counter what they've said. You've met some, I'm sure. They're the ones that you encounter and try to believe or understand, but something inside of you is screaming that you're a fool if you buy into their story. Sometimes your insides are telling you just to get away -- as fast as possible.

In my mediation practice, and to a lesser extent in my law practice, I have met and have had to experience these people. As I write this, I remember some of their faces that pass through my mind's eye. I invariably felt the same reactions to each of them, regardless of gender, age or situational environment: first, I took a long, hot shower (as soon as possible) to clear my energy, and second, I spent some time ruminating about how they could wander/stumble through life like that.

The point of this is not to judge others, necessarily, but to show that sometimes, all is not what it seems. If you encounter such a situation, especially in conflict resolution or negotiation settings, please don't tell yourself that you're imagining this dynamic. Be aware that not everyone you will encounter cares about principled negotiations or even honesty. And not everyone has good will toward others. John Adams said that "All governments depend upon the good will of the people". But not all people have good will. Perhaps that's why government is flawed.

The Moral of This Posting is....

Focus on your purpose and your goals in negotiations and conflict settings. Have all of your factual research at your fingertips. As often as possible, be of good will. Be generous with what you have (and can) share. Ask lots of questions and endeavor to build solid rapport with the other. Have faith in positive outcomes, but do not be naive. Listen to your instincts. When in doubt, always follow your instincts. The unfortunate fact is that some people are simply not what they seem.