|
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
UC LABOR MANAGEMENT ADVISOR'S STRATEGY IMPROVES CONFLICT RESOLUTION FRESNO - UC labor management farm advisor Gregory Encina Billikopf has found a better way to mediate conflicts. Years ago he accepted a challenge to mediate a deep-seated conflict between two agricultural mechanics, and stumbled onto an approach that may well change the way mediation is carried out. The prevailing wisdom among conflict resolution scholars suggests that the mediator not hold private meetings with the combatants in advance of a joint meeting with everyone present. "Most authors and researchers believe you shouldn't meet with the two parties separately," Billikopf said. "They don't want either party to get the idea that you may have some insider information that will make you favor one side or the other." As a result, people often get into big fights in front of the mediator. Proponents of the traditional approach say diving into the conflict with a mediator and "getting it all out" is part of the catharsis. However, Billikopf said his research suggests that separate advance meetings provide a valuable opportunity to listen and teach each individual negotiation skills that can defuse an emotionally charged conflict once they face each other in a joint session. He said "getting it all out" does more harm than good. "They've already been 'getting it all out.' That's why they need mediation," he said. Billikopf's findings were published in Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal. "In a joint meeting, when both people are upset, neither wants to listen first. Emotions can escalate out of control as each side speaks while the other tries to rebut and defend him or herself," Billikopf said. "Conversely, I've met individually with grown men who, within a couple of minutes, begin to weep. To finally have a chance to explain their side to somebody who will listen is a huge emotional release. Of course, they would never allow themselves to cry in front of the other person. The crying would likely have turned into an angry outburst." After a person has had the chance to vent, Billikopf uses the individual sessions to teach each party to share feelings without using hurtful words or expressions that will put the other on the defensive. Billikopf writes in his article about one particularly hostile worker whose anger was often manifested in shouting and profanity. During the advance meeting, it was clear that he felt no regret about his temper tantrums. He minimized the extent of his anger and justified his bullying behavior. "Had he defended such behavior in a joint session, his credibility would have been greatly damaged," Billikopf wrote. During a series of role-plays and conversations with the mediator in the advance meeting, he came to understand the importance of offering an apology for his profanity and anger. Billikopf also discovered a strategy to overcome the impression of mediator bias, the No. 1 objection some experts have to meeting with the parties separately. He arranges the chairs so the two parties face each other, while the mediator sits at a distance from them, encouraging people to look and speak to each other, rather than to the mediator. "When they come to the joint session, they aren't talking to me," Billikopf said. "Sometimes, the two people do such a good job of talking and solving problems, I almost feel I'm not needed there." In this model, it is the contending parties who retain control over the outcome, not the mediator. Billikopf's study involved work-related interpersonal conflicts, but its applicability will reach into other types of mediation settings where emotions run high. Billikopf's
paper "Contributions of Caucusing and Pre-Caucusing to Mediation"
is available at http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7research/7res04.htm.
For more information, contact Billikopf at (209) 525-6800, gebillikopf@ucdavis.edu. ### |