[Note: This article appeared in the January 2008 issue of the Silver Planet news magazine.]
In my work as a mediator, I am often called upon to help two parties arrive at a satisfactory number. I’m reminded time and again that it’s not just the number, but the way people feel about the number, that matters. Recently, I co-facilitated a dispute involving, on one hand, several households that were using their homes for movie and TV filming, and on the other hand, neighbors fed up with the resulting noise and commotion. At one point, we found ourselves wrestling with L.A.'s use of the term “infrequent” in its city guidelines. The opposing parties were far apart to begin with: The filmers thought that twice a month was “infrequent,” while the neighbors felt like twice a year was more like it. I couldn’t resist making reference to the classic scene from Annie Hall:
[Alvy and Annie are seeing their therapists at the same time on a split screen]
Alvy Singer's therapist: How often do you sleep together?
Annie Hall's therapist: Do you have sex often?
Alvy Singer: [lamenting] Hardly ever. Maybe three times a week.
Annie Hall: [annoyed] Constantly. I'd say three times a week.
The key in mediation is to get parties to hear one another. Putting yourself in another person’s place enables you to see things from a different perspective – and this is what sometimes loosens a party’s grip on his position and allows him to refocus on his actual interest. This can be a turning point in a conflict.
Several times a month, I volunteer to mediate cases in Small Claims Court. Here is a place where it’s always about a number, right? Take another look:
Neighbor 1 mentions to Neighbor 2 that they should re-do the dilapidated fence between their properties. (Neighbor 2’s dog has been getting into N #1’s garden and causing trouble.) Neighbor 2 says it sounds like a good idea. Neighbor 1 hires a fence company, has the work done for $4000, and bills Neighbor 2 for half that amount. Neighbor 2 is aghast. He agreed to nothing, saw no designs or estimates, signed no contracts. N1 takes N2 to Small Claims court for $2000.
If they go before the judge, chances are the baby will be split, Solomon-style. It’s really he-said, he-said. There’s no discovery process in Small Claims court, and neither party has brought a witness. The judge figures N1 didn’t go about this in the best way, so he’s not entitled to the full amount. However, N2 has the benefit of a terrific new fence that will keep his annoying dog inside. The judge orders N2 to pay N1 $1000.
Both parties are furious. Each feels that he is “out” $1000 – N1 is missing the other half of what he sued for, and N2 has to cough up $1000 he never agreed to pay in the first place. With this amount of rancor in the air, their relationship can only deteriorate further.
What if they had mediated? First, each would have a chance to vent the feelings of frustration and resentment that this conflict has engendered. Each party would have heard the other out, without shouting and insults. Perhaps N1 would have offered an apology for disrespecting N2 by leaving him out of the process. Perhaps N2 would have admitted that now his dog stays put and that the fence is pretty good-looking. Perhaps a compromise figure of $1000 is fair. Because both neighbors retained control of the conflict and arrived at an agreement themselves, the figure of $1000 would not seem so onerous.
It’s not just about the number.
* * *
Susan North is a mediator/facilitator in private practice here in Silver Lake. She can be reached at info@northmediation.com.