A goal of the mediation process is to improve communication between people who don’t trust or understand each other. As a mediator, I want to model an effective communication style and assist the parties in using language that will resolve the current conflict, prevent conflict in the future, and promote understanding.
One of the techniques I use to accomplish this is to help the parties ask questions of or make statements to each other in a different way than they have done in the past in order to lead to a different outcome. So, for example, during the mediation, party one tells of an incident at a recent staff meeting, where he made a suggestion about how to solve a work-related problem. Party two reacted by saying “that’s a lousy idea- it won’t work.” Party one describes at the mediation how he felt embarrassed and humiliated by party two at the meeting.
I ask the parties how that conversation might be reframed. That is, how could party two have told party one what she thought of the idea but in a more constructive and gentler way? I might have them replay the same incident with party two reframing the statement so as to validate party one’s idea and offer an alternative solution. I might also have party one tell party two in a way she might hear how what party two said made him feel when she criticized him. In reframing this interaction, party two might have said to party one at the meeting: that’s an interesting idea. I’m wondering, though, if we did it this way (suggesting an alternate idea), we might get a better result.
By reframing, a person is able to get his or her point across to others in a different way, clearly and convincingly, yet kindly and productively. In so doing, the person receiving the communication is much more likely to accept the criticism and alternate suggestion willingly, agreeably and without becoming defensive or hurt. This, in turn, can prevent conflict, solve the presenting problem and promote understanding.