Hello, hordes of readers!

So where have I gone? Well, this mediator-in-the-making has started a family. I realized early on that pregnancy and new-mommyhood (and nonprofit development work in this economy) would require enough of me that mediation would likely have to wait.

What will become of me, and this site? That remains to be seen.

I continue to be inspired about the practice of mediation. I am still excited about the prospects of practicing mediation. There are so many possibilities, in such varied settings. And I look forward to seeing how my interest in this area will color my parenting.

There are plenty of mommy blogs out there for any readers interested in the trials and tribulations of new moms. Still, I have considered adding to the noise.

As a relative novice in conflict work and an outsider to the world of neuroscience, I enjoy living and working in a time when neuroscience can be accessible enough for me to have opportunities to absorb and apply it. Yet, I find it challenging to separate the true science from the pop.

I’ve come to trust Brains on Purpose for a responsible approach to the intersection of neuroscience and conflict studies. The recent “Are you a wise mediator or a woolly mystic?” is no exception.

The current work flapping some feathers is the TED lecture of Jill Bolte Taylor. Terms like “mapping the microcircuitry” sound very impressive to a layperson like me. Her message regarding the right hemisphere is one of interconnectedness that many people need right now. This is balanced by her message regarding the left hemisphere, as being that part of us which allows what many call “othering.” Her description of her near-death experience and the potential of all humankind which it revealed to her is moving (though I’ll admit, respectfully, I found myself thinking of Terrence McKenna at one point…at least a few of you might see it).

Stephanie West Allen has posted Some critical thinking about the Jill Bolte Taylor video. She quotes a professor as saying, “It is unfortunate that Jill Bolte dragged out the left-brain/right-brain stuff as an explanation for her experiences since the brain does not work that way.” And Diane Coutu says, “I can’t predict how much Taylor’s ideas are going to influence the business community, but the current popularity of so-called right-brain exercises in management training programs augurs badly.” As if the science weren’t enough, accounts of the wild profitability of this story unfortunately awakens the curmudgeonly skeptic in me.

I find the main idea of Ms. Taylor’s message to be both moving and inspiring. “We are the life force power of the universe … We have the power from moment to moment to choose who we want to be in the world…Which do you choose? And when?”

That’s something I can bring to the mediation table, to my coaching sessions, and with me in my own moments of conflict.

I think I’ll hold on to that and get my science elsewhere.

When I first sat down to write about this, and the fascinating conversations it’s sparked, I took a sweeping, detailed, rather long approach. I found it gratifying to see a study echoing comments I’ve made myself in posts such as the one referenced above, and this one. My reactions were similar to many readers’ to the questions and hypotheses posed, the anecdotal evidence shared … and I wanted to give my two cents.

But really, much of what needs to be said has been already. Important questions are being asked about whether mediation is meant to be a profession, what changes need to be made to training programs, whether there really is a lack of demand for mediation services or if we’re just not trying hard enough to promote our services. I encourage you to read the posts on my friends’ blogs, and the very well written comments, as well as at least a few of Veilkonja’s plain facts:

• “Of those who decide to become mediators, 80% cannot make a living solely as mediators … 15% keep busy, make a decent living…the top 5%…can gross…a million dollars per year.”

• Approximately 25,000 volunteer mediators are practicing in community mediation centers in the U.S. “A large percentage of disputes…are mediated in free public programs.” Meanwhile, only 10,000 mediators make $50k or more per year. And various government, corporate, labor, educational and legal agencies employ just 4,000.
• “Mediation remains a choice that is more often than not the result of a judicial or legislative mandate than of party choice…Mediators do not offer clients what they are looking for: a process where the prerequisite is not to be trusting, reasonable or logical, but a process where they can be angry and resentful … that works and … they will not be exploited.”
• “While … a “massive amount of…mediation work” is going on in organizations, little of it is compensated and purchased separately, and is instead part of a managerial or government job.”

I’d like to discuss two aspects of this paper, which related to my own experience: overoptimism bred by training programs, and the winner-take-all economy.
It’s all rainbows and lollipops.

A recurring theme in this paper is “entrant overoptimism.” A number of my cohorts in the 40 hour basic training I took last fall expected to jump in to their new, lucrative mediation careers the day they went home with their certificate. Or maybe the day after that. Some were between jobs, others were eager to transition from related careers like family law or psychotherapy. A considerable portion were far more optimistic than I, even with our trainers’ warnings and realistically bleak pictures of making it anything more than an avocation.

I vividly recall one trainer explaining that it took five years and $70k in debt before mediation fed the family. My most optimistic cohorts seemed unfazed by this. Some seemed not to have read books or blogs about the profession before arriving for training. They were unaware of the mini-sized market for mediators, the personal and professional challenges of attempting to mediate full time. I do not place so much responsibility as Veilkonja does on the trainers, but more on the students. We must enter such weighty endeavors with eyes open. Many people do more research before buying an iPod than some students had done before endeavoring to change their own and their families’ lives.

Still, the mere existence of the revolving door of training sessions, each churning out 20+ newly trained neophytes, could be contributing to “overoptimism.” I can see how some would assume that if ‘they’ are training so many new mediators, there must be work. Having gone to a music college, I see the flaw in this logic. But to my point … Is that overoptimism such a bad thing? Veilkonja seems to think so, citing the cost society incurs for individuals paying large sums for training, and foregoing other career options, deep in their fog of overoptimism. Perhaps many learn a hard lesson when they finish their training and hang their shingle, and no one bangs the door down. And perhaps this perceived cost to society is worth what we get for it: more people, in more professions, households and communities, skilled in and inspired to learn more about conflict management and mediation.

Winner-take-all

First a definition if, like me, you have not studied basic economic principles. Reward is relative and concentrated “in the hands of the few”. Pay is not proportionate to anything. “While those near the top win big, everyone else is far behind, and their reward bears little relationship to how close they were to winning.”

Compare this to human capital theory, which applies to most markets and “predicts that workers…will be paid in proportion to the value of their productive contributions…Pay is distributed based on talent…and on the willingness to expend effort…”

Having graduated from a music college and since transitioned into nonprofit work, these theories resonate with me. I see how they are at work in the world of mediation. Consider Kanye West as compared to – well, any of the thousands (yes, thousands) of bands in the Boston area alone. The disparity is obvious. It sometimes seems as though there is little or nothing between mega-star and hobbyist in the music world. Of course this is not entirely true. There are teachers (school and private lesson), recording engineers, composers, recording artists, software engineers, combinations of these, the list seems endless.

But. For a fair comparison between the winner-take-all markets of music and mediation, we must only consider music performers. As Veilkonja rightly points out, mediation is not a reproducible act. It is the performance of the act of mediating a case that is done by Ms. Mediator in her way that creates a name, a reputation. Veilkonja also rightly points out that once I could buy a CD of Pavarotti, the next best guy was doomed to obscurity. If I can get Pavarotti, what do I need with Jones? And so the top few mediators, the ones with the most work behind them and the strongest reputation, continue to be the most sought after. The mega-stars.

All of you who play guitar in the basement through their headphone amp, or load in to Boston bars on Friday nights after long work-weeks, you know of what I speak. All of you mediators working 100+ hours a week to mediate, coach, self-promote, and after at least five years barely make a living – or barely break even. You know of what I speak. There is very little between that mega-star and the amazing hobbyist. Talent is not the major factor.

I must thank Urska for putting this very real picture of the mediation world in my head.

To learn more about this theory, Veilkonja recommends The Winner-Take-All Society by Frank & Cook. I think this might be a popular book for all mediators interested in either exploring the challenges to making money, or in changing the profession.

And finally, if you’ve read all the way to here, thank you for considering my thoughts. Aren’t you glad I didn’t take the sweeping, detailed, long-winded approach I started with?

My focus was on training the volunteer leaders I work with to put into practice some of the same leadership skills I use working with them. I hadn’t been full conscious of the fact that to date I had not yet provided this information quite so transparently. Why? I work with very capable and experienced people. Perhaps it was a fear that revealing all of the ‘tricks up my sleeve’ would render them less effective.

This seems to be the flavor of conversations I’ve had with experienced and novice mediators regarding the benefits and pitfalls of varying degrees of transparency in the mediation room. Like in many of the situations I find myself in at work, I think the degree of transparency appropriate in the mediation room depends on the situation: the person, the content of the conversation, even the timing.

In this brief moment of clarity, I find that I am much more hopeful about the benefits of transparency in leadership than I realized. And I am eager to be more conscious about testing the waters of transparency in the mediation room — as well as in difficult conversations during which I get to employ some mediation magic.

I’m not certain that I’ll have a whole lot of opportunity to test the waters of transparency in my small claims work. But in other settings both professional and personal, I might find opportunities. And it’s something I’ll remain mindful of as I explore new venues to flex my mediation muscles.

Anyone have any resources to suggest for further study on the subject?

There are a whole lot of people in the Boston area alone practicing mediation and conflict resolution in various ways. Some make very comfortable livings doing mediation or a combination of mediation, arbitration, negotiation, coaching and even ombuds consulting. Some combine these works with other work. And many, like me, do this work as an avocation. For free.

I can’t help but think back to my days in the Boston music scene. There are literally thousands of bands in Boston alone. Many are happy to play for free (or really end up paying to play by the end of the night). And with so many bands drooling just to have an audience, any audience, bars have little or no reason to pay bands anything. That is, no reason until a seemingly miraculous chain of events combine with an incredible amount of hard work and a lot of supportive people to land that band with a few bargaining chips in their pocket.

Is it the same in the world of mediation? I’m looking at you, experienced Boston mediators, especially. Post your comments and share your thoughts or add some more questions.

Does giving it away make it harder to make a living?

Are we promoting awareness of the profession through all this volunteer work, and so making it more possible for more people to find conflict resolution a profession rather than avocation?

With an “intimate knowledge of what motivates an urban youth to shoot,” violence interrupters are trained by violence prevention experts and then connected in to neighborhood networks in order to intervene before violence happens. Usually, this means stepping in when revenge violence is likely.

CeaseFire’s efforts have substantially decreased the rate of gun violence in a city suffering what has been deemed a public health epidemic.

As I explore the practice of mediation, I am exploring how it and related practices such as conflict resolution, conflict management, coaching and negotiation, are practiced professionally. Every now and then, I’ll share with you here brief profiles of the career paths I find intriguing, inspiring, or otherwise noteworthy.

Violence interrupters take a unique path into the world of professional conflict resolution, perhaps making their work all the more compelling to me. It is a true community empowerment model. Community members becoming leaders of conflict management within their own communities. Modeling the change they wish to see in their part of the world.

I’m so glad to know that this exists.

For a more in-depth treatment of the program, hear an interview with the director or visit the Executive Summary: Evaluation of CeaseFire-Chicago published by Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research.

Thank you all for reading, and I’m pleased to meet you!

As we boarded the plane for our late evening flight, two men became a bit entangled. One was standing in the aisle, taking longer than some might like to get situated (we’ll call him Man #1). The other, having fully lost his patience, barked.

Man #1 (who I know to be generally mild mannered) chose to respond to Man#2 with matched annoyance. They went round a couple more times — at least six rows away from each other — before both were finally settled in their seats, and thankfully quiet.

What was gained or lost in this moment of conflict? Here are my observations:

1. The stress level of a number of passengers was at least momentarily increased.
2. Man #2 became increasingly heated with each response from Man #1, and so certainly nothing was solved with any of Man #1’s responses.
3. Had Man #1 not responded, the moment of conflict would have ended before it began.
4. Both men just wanted to get into their seats. Neither achieved this any more quickly or enjoyably through their spates.
5. Man #1 realized that Man #2 and a bunch of other people wanted to get to their seats, but thought that with a number of other people also in the aisle ahead it would make no difference if he rushed. Bottom line? He didn’t mean to be in the way.

My pearls of wisdom on this one …

• By assuming the worst of each other, both turned a perfectly harmless event into a harmful one.
• Giving back just what you get might not get you anywhere good, when you don’t like what you get.
• You never know who you’re talking to. Man #1 and Man #2 turned out to be staying in the same hotel in Iceland, making for more than one unnecessary awkward moment.