About Conflict Resolution Blog

Conflict Resolution Blog has been a member since July 19th 2010, and has created 112 posts from scratch.

Conflict Resolution Blog's Bio

Conflict Resolution Blog's Websites

This Author's Website is

Conflict Resolution Blog's Recent Articles

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.


That’s a Fact, Jack: Emphasizing Facts in Conflict Resolution

I love facts. As a lawyer, mediator and an arbitrator, I so very much love facts! I love and respect facts because they’re elements of the whole cloth of truth. For example, the temperature gauge outside my window reads 76 degrees. If I read the thermometer correctly, that’s a fact. See the difference between that and, “I feel as though it’s 76 degrees outside”. That is not a fact — that’s a feeling. Where I am going with this is that one needs to be able to identify and rely on relevant facts when resolving conflict. Feelings change — facts don’t.

Fact Finding – Secrets of Resolving Conflict

Yes, yes, I know that feelings are important, too. But not in this particular post. Here, I’m advancing the beauty and wisdom of facts. It’s important because: 1) many people cannot distinguish the difference intellectually; 2) just like assumptions which lead to false premises, ignoring or misconstruing the facts in a situation can quash any resolution; 3) the facts are signposts of the truth and can make or break a person’s credibility, a lawsuit, or the resolution of a conflict.

The Facts, Ma’am, Just the Facts….

Let’s start with the first. In order to prove the viability of my supposition that many people cannot separate facts from feelings, try engaging in a political discussion with someone on any subject relating to politics. Make sure that you are prepared by having some salient facts at your disposal. Watch how quickly the dialogue disintegrates into a discussion of feelings. “It’s not fair that…” or “How can people live like that?” … or “The big oil companies want us to suffer”. If you interjected some facts into the discussion at various intervals, you might either be perceived as a savior or an interloper. Many people don’t like facts that run contrary to their feelings. By the way, the discussion doesn’t have to be political. Virtually any subject where facts are involved will do.

Facts Are Forever

As to the second, when you ignore the facts or relegate them to less importance than feelings, you are pulling the rug out from underneath yourself, to coin a phrase. In a conflict setting, clear, competent dialogue is all-important. [No, Dear, not at 2 AM when you're out alone and are being followed -- run!] If you’re focusing on feelings rather than the facts your chances of a resolution that will stand the test of time are greatly diminished. In part this is because feelings are transitory — they change — while facts do not. If the fact is that I was born on April 1, that will always be a fact. Fifty years from now it will still be a fact. Nothing will change it. Even if I lie about it, it will not change the fact itself. Facts are immutable. That’s the beauty of them!

People of the Lie

In my career, I have the opportunity to listen to hundreds of people from all socio-economic, racial, ethnic, cultural, religious and gender categories tell me their “truth”. They either were giving sworn testimony (under penalty of perjury) in a trial, arbitration or deposition, or they were telling their story in a mediation. In all cases I have listened very carefully to what they have said. In many of the instances, the underlying facts of the situation did not support their testimony. What I mean is that the facts were contrary to what they had said. In some cases, the facts had been changed or altered to “support” their version of the events. And in some cases, the facts lined up perfectly in connection with their position or directly supported their testimony. Once again, a clear grasp of the relevant facts is undeniably helpful in making evaluations or assessments of credibility, circumstantial evidence, or even interpretation of direct evidence. It is critical in engaging in the dialogue that is necessary to resolving conflict.

There’s an old saying in the law biz: If you have the facts, argue the facts. If you don’t have the facts, baffle ‘em with bull____. While I won’t comment on the ethics of this adage here, I will say this: whoever invented it knew the importance of facts.

Don’t Make Assumptions When Resolving Conflicts

There is an old adage that some of us have probably run across. It is, “Don’t assume. When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me.” (For the uninitiated, look at the word “assume” and make the appropriate connections). But I think the real and more important reasons not to make assumptions — about anything — is because you’ll probably never know the truth if you assume, and that leads to false premises. And false premises are akin to building a house on a pile of sand. Because the foundation is transitory, so is the house.

He’s Just Not That Into You – Not!

Now I’m not talking about making the assumption that it’s not logical or safe to swim in the ocean if you don’t already know how to swim. That’s a sure bet. I’m referring to making assumptions about other people, their agendas, their interests, their personalities without objective, concrete evidence. For example, you arrive at your friend’s barbeque and find yourself sitting next to a very attractive, nicely dressed man. Although you take steps to initiate conversation, he responds very little and you assume that he doesn’t find you attractive. So you excuse yourself and wander off to greener pastures. Later you discover (from your friend) that his father died a month ago, and the only reason he came to the barbeque was because of her friendly persuasion that he get out and socialize. His non-responsiveness, then, had nothing to do with you and was related to something completely different.

Say What You Mean and Mean What You Say

The most damaging assumptions are often made in negotiations and in those situations where clarity of communication is all-important. One (or more) mistaken assumption(s) can sound the death knell for the dialogue without any of the parties necessarily knowing or understanding why. (That is, of course, unless they really take the time to unwind the morass of the dialogue’s tentacles to determine where they veered off course).

It is always better to ask questions in order to obtain the answer than to make an assumption and be wrong. People will be flattered by your questions — they will take it as a sign of your interest and concern for them. Ask — don’t assume — and observe how your communication and negotiations improve.