Thanks to USA's new TV series about a San Francisco mediator, mediation as a profession is getting some unusual attention. But how realistic is the show's, and in particular, Kate Reed's (the main character) portrayal of everyone's favorite form of alternative dispute resolution?
Kate found her way to mediation the way many of us do - attorneys who no longer wish to engage in the often-trying world of litigation. We seek a new path where we can still use our legal knowledge, but in the spirit of collaboration rather than competition. So far, so good.
But Kate's mediation style is what some might call directive, if not downright unethical. She lies to her clients, misleads them, and bullies them into 'solutions' using threats of legal action and blackmail. She utilizes force, swears, and is perennially late for meetings. She visibly chooses sides, and works towards her own envisioned resolution (irrespective of what her clients want). Suffice it to say, this mediator thinks Kate Reed lacks a mediation style worthy of emulation. I would be loathe to employ virtually all of her, um, techniques.
Despite stock cliché phrases, usually preceded by "mediation is where/when/how....," the show has very little to do with mediation in practice. USA has succeeded in making a show that is perhaps most interesting for its brief glimpses of San Francisco (most of which, unfortunately, is stock footage), and for the farcical interpretation of the life of a professional mediator. Personally, I rely much more on my active listening skills in the mediation room, and I believe in maintaing an atmosphere of civility and collaboration. But then again, I'm not trying to market a television show, I'm working to build a longterm practice. The less drama, the better, from my perspective. Not so with cable TV.
Nonetheless, with a show about a San Francisco-based mediator on the air weekly, the odds are good I'll still be sucked into watching the occasional episode.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Nicole Gesher now a mediation panelist for the San Mateo Superior Court
Gesher Mediation is pleased to announce that Nicole Gesher has been accepted to the Mediation Panel for the Civil ADR Program of the San Mateo Superior Court.
Gesher Mediation is honored to be a member of this distinguished panel, and looks forward to serving the mediation needs of San Mateo County.
Gesher Mediation is honored to be a member of this distinguished panel, and looks forward to serving the mediation needs of San Mateo County.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Ethical Concerns in Volunteer Mediations: One Woman's Fight Against the Exploitation of a Non-Commercial Space
Occasionally, I am honored to serve as a volunteer for Community Boards, the nonprofit organization where I did my initial 40 hour mediation training.
There are many things to love about Community Boards, but perhaps the most beloved aspect of their mediation model lies in their volunteers. They train ordinary community members to mediate neighborhood disputes, regardless of the volunteers' professional background. As a result, many San Francisco neighborhoods have benefited from Community Boards mediations, which resolve a wide range of conflicts. Through their volunteer program, I have mediated landlord tenant issues, noise disputes, family concerns, planning commission hearings, and many other types of conflict. The city uses them on a regular basis to resolve conflicts that would otherwise clog our agencies and courts.
However, when I serve as a volunteer mediator, I leave my own private practice out of the mediation room. I feel very strongly that a Community Boards mediation is not the place to engage in marketing for my own business; rather, I am there as a representative of the nonprofit, and nothing more. While I can tell you that not every mediator feels similarly, for myself this is the only ethical option. I was a mediator in a case where one of the other panelists told me he planned to give his business cards to the parties before the mediation, and that I should feel free to do the same. When I told the other panelist I found this inappropriate something unexpected happened. He thanked me for keeping him honest. Neither one of us distributed our cards. The lesson to be learned? I'm not sure that there is one, except maybe to listen to your internal moral compass. Others might appreciate your integrity, but that's really besides the point - the impetus in my decision was the parties, and their comfort level. In the end, we provided a mediation that was focussed on the issues before us, rather than our self-promotion. And that, to me, was really the point.
There are many things to love about Community Boards, but perhaps the most beloved aspect of their mediation model lies in their volunteers. They train ordinary community members to mediate neighborhood disputes, regardless of the volunteers' professional background. As a result, many San Francisco neighborhoods have benefited from Community Boards mediations, which resolve a wide range of conflicts. Through their volunteer program, I have mediated landlord tenant issues, noise disputes, family concerns, planning commission hearings, and many other types of conflict. The city uses them on a regular basis to resolve conflicts that would otherwise clog our agencies and courts.
However, when I serve as a volunteer mediator, I leave my own private practice out of the mediation room. I feel very strongly that a Community Boards mediation is not the place to engage in marketing for my own business; rather, I am there as a representative of the nonprofit, and nothing more. While I can tell you that not every mediator feels similarly, for myself this is the only ethical option. I was a mediator in a case where one of the other panelists told me he planned to give his business cards to the parties before the mediation, and that I should feel free to do the same. When I told the other panelist I found this inappropriate something unexpected happened. He thanked me for keeping him honest. Neither one of us distributed our cards. The lesson to be learned? I'm not sure that there is one, except maybe to listen to your internal moral compass. Others might appreciate your integrity, but that's really besides the point - the impetus in my decision was the parties, and their comfort level. In the end, we provided a mediation that was focussed on the issues before us, rather than our self-promotion. And that, to me, was really the point.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Self-Sabotage in the Mediation Room: And, How to Move On
Sometimes, we attribute motivations and intentions to those around us when they are simply not there. This may be our own projection of insecurity, or simply the accumulation of baggage we all lug around with us in our daily lives. Whatever the case, don't be too sure that you know where someone else is coming from. Until you actually talk about it, you really can't be sure.
However, sometimes, we do know how other people are feeling, or can predict that our actions will trigger a patterned reaction in them. And when we find ourselves in this situation, say, in a mediation, it would behoove us to avoid the hot button issue that you know will trigger an emotional reaction, right? The answer is not as predictable as common sense might dictate. Sometimes, we sacrifice progress and consensus building for the thrill of a cheap dig, and snatch at the self-destructive option. We make the comment, starting a cycle we know all too well. Why do we do this? That's probably a question that is more appropriate for a psychologist to address.
But in mediation, how do we recover from such a moment? How do we take a step back, and salvage the hard-won progress we've collaborated to build thus far? In my experience, it's important to call a cheap shot a cheap shot, but at the same time not to belittle the person who succumbed to the moment. After all, we're all human. We've all stumbled in this way before, and we will again. But it's important to recognize the mediation room as a sacred space that does not abide such behavior. We have to bring our best selves into the mediation room, and be prepared to compromise and work together.
So, OK. The person who has initiated this behavior has been called out. Now what? Both people are feeling exposed, maybe embarrassed. The mediator then has to bring everyone back to the task at hand, to continue the conversation. Maybe we acknowledge that there are many emotions in the room. An apology might be in order. But we return to the basic tenets of respect and civility that must guide the process. No one said mediation was going to be easy. But if you trust in the process, acknowledge each other's humanity, and learn to move on, you've got a fighting chance of crafting an agreement.
However, sometimes, we do know how other people are feeling, or can predict that our actions will trigger a patterned reaction in them. And when we find ourselves in this situation, say, in a mediation, it would behoove us to avoid the hot button issue that you know will trigger an emotional reaction, right? The answer is not as predictable as common sense might dictate. Sometimes, we sacrifice progress and consensus building for the thrill of a cheap dig, and snatch at the self-destructive option. We make the comment, starting a cycle we know all too well. Why do we do this? That's probably a question that is more appropriate for a psychologist to address.
But in mediation, how do we recover from such a moment? How do we take a step back, and salvage the hard-won progress we've collaborated to build thus far? In my experience, it's important to call a cheap shot a cheap shot, but at the same time not to belittle the person who succumbed to the moment. After all, we're all human. We've all stumbled in this way before, and we will again. But it's important to recognize the mediation room as a sacred space that does not abide such behavior. We have to bring our best selves into the mediation room, and be prepared to compromise and work together.
So, OK. The person who has initiated this behavior has been called out. Now what? Both people are feeling exposed, maybe embarrassed. The mediator then has to bring everyone back to the task at hand, to continue the conversation. Maybe we acknowledge that there are many emotions in the room. An apology might be in order. But we return to the basic tenets of respect and civility that must guide the process. No one said mediation was going to be easy. But if you trust in the process, acknowledge each other's humanity, and learn to move on, you've got a fighting chance of crafting an agreement.
What are ways to ensure divorce mediation goes smoothly? (Quora)
Quora has become an important resource, perhaps particularly for those of us in the Bay Area. One question I came across recently asked for tips on how to ensure that a divorce mediation will go more smoothly.
The thread of answers provided common sense advice about how to interact with each other to maximize positive results, and of course I threw my two cents into the mix. Read my answer, and others, here.
The thread of answers provided common sense advice about how to interact with each other to maximize positive results, and of course I threw my two cents into the mix. Read my answer, and others, here.
Monday, January 24, 2011
RecruiterEsq.com profiles Nicole Gesher, Mediator and Owner, Gesher Mediation
Recently, I was honored to be profiled by RecruiterEsq.com, a site that delves into the legal world, traditional and non-traditional career paths included. It's interesting to think about mediation in the scope of the larger legal realm, and it made me grateful to be working in a field that's so much more collaborative than litigation. It's wonderful to feel like I am really helping people to build their own solutions, in a constructive, thoughtful way.
Big thanks to Melissa for including Gesher Mediation on her very informative site!
Big thanks to Melissa for including Gesher Mediation on her very informative site!
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
"I can't stand him!": Broken Relationships and Mediation
Sometimes, the very people we need to speak with the most are exactly the folks we are least able to tolerate. We're so angry, so frustrated, so emotional, that we can't even begin to THINK of talking with this person who has so offended us. And yet, if we don't speak with them, what hope can there be of any sort of resolution?
Mediation is a collaborative process, which assumes a basic working relationship of the parties. You may not like each other (indeed, you may hate the person sitting across the table). Nevertheless, your best chance of building a lasting solution is also sitting across the table.
Several times during the last few months, I've been contacted by potential clients who wanted to mediate, but didn't really want to speak with the other parties involved. While I can empathize with the stress of a strained relationship, I also know that to mediate without communicating is simply impossible. It is imperative that each party commit to sitting down together, and be willing to engage directly with the other people in the room. I can't help a potential client if they are unwilling or unable to talk to the other party. That's what regular lawyers are for!
I've had several clients recently who have told me that the only time they can talk to the other party about difficult issues is when they are in mediation with me. You may be surprised to learn what is possible when you openly communicate with the other party in a safe, facilitated space. Many of my clients are confronting deeply challenging, emotional issues. We all can use a little help sometimes, and mediation provides a neutral zone in which you can communicate honestly with each other.
Let's be clear: mediation, while collaborative, can often be driven by self interest. To deny that would be to engage in willful ignorance of human nature. However, so long as the parties can communicate and trust each other to honor the terms of the agreement, the mediation can proceed. The hardest part is often walking into the mediation room. But if you can do that, you are well on your way to building a solution that will very likely improve your current situation.
Mediation is a collaborative process, which assumes a basic working relationship of the parties. You may not like each other (indeed, you may hate the person sitting across the table). Nevertheless, your best chance of building a lasting solution is also sitting across the table.
Several times during the last few months, I've been contacted by potential clients who wanted to mediate, but didn't really want to speak with the other parties involved. While I can empathize with the stress of a strained relationship, I also know that to mediate without communicating is simply impossible. It is imperative that each party commit to sitting down together, and be willing to engage directly with the other people in the room. I can't help a potential client if they are unwilling or unable to talk to the other party. That's what regular lawyers are for!
I've had several clients recently who have told me that the only time they can talk to the other party about difficult issues is when they are in mediation with me. You may be surprised to learn what is possible when you openly communicate with the other party in a safe, facilitated space. Many of my clients are confronting deeply challenging, emotional issues. We all can use a little help sometimes, and mediation provides a neutral zone in which you can communicate honestly with each other.
Let's be clear: mediation, while collaborative, can often be driven by self interest. To deny that would be to engage in willful ignorance of human nature. However, so long as the parties can communicate and trust each other to honor the terms of the agreement, the mediation can proceed. The hardest part is often walking into the mediation room. But if you can do that, you are well on your way to building a solution that will very likely improve your current situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)