Janine is a mediator who has also trained in conflict coaching, restorative justice and non-violent communication. Formerly she was a partner of the City firm, Slaughter and May where she was a corporate and commercial lawyer, and since then has delivered sessions to schools and other organisations about handling conflict. She had already given one talk to a small group of WISE members on the theory behind different ways of resolving disputes, but on this occasion was asked to give an experiential session to demonstrate the principles. Janine did this by asking us to engage in four practical exercises.

The first of these was to form a pair and for one person to tell the other about an argument they were having (or had in the past). The other person had to ask 5 questions and listen to the answers but say nothing more. The listener was to be empathetic rather than sympathetic. The questions were:

1. What happened?
2. What are you feeling about this?
3. What are your thoughts about this?
4. What do you need right now?
5. What can you do to help solve the problem?

Janine said that the person with the problem is much more likely to come to a compromise or solution to the argument if they are shown empathy. Further it is essential to find out fully what is going on before considering possible solutions, so the ordering of the questions is critical. The challenge for those of us that were listeners was to refrain from offering suggestions, as this is often unhelpful when we lack a complete understanding of the circumstances and the emotions engendered.

Following the first exercise, one participant pointed out that, while it was all very well being empathetic when not involved in a dispute, it was much harder when you are. Janine explained the neuroscience behind this. In particular when we are involved in a serious argument, our neuronal empathy systems are turned off and our brain goes into fight or flight mode. She demonstrated in a role-play how our tendency then is to argue back, blame the other person or run away. The next exercise was about how we counter these natural impulses and do something different.

The second exercise required us to summon up some acting skills, simulating a dispute between 2 neighbours. Neighbour A was sitting down and Neighbour B came in to complain. Neighbour A had to:

• Build rapport (visual and verbal – for example by matching the other’s voice and stance, before trying to “bring down” the level of the complaint)
• Listen and reflect back
• Show understanding of B’s reality
• Establish what B needed
• Ask what B wanted to happen

As part of the exercise, Neighbor A was not to argue back, justify their behavior or refute the criticism. At the end of the exercise, we compared notes about what we had done, and reflected on the research that effective communication is 50% body language, 40% tone of voice and 10% words.

Exercise 3 was a variation on the previous scenario, where Neighbor B (still the complainant) tried to approach Neighbor A in a manner designed to reduce conflict by:

1. Building rapport
2. Using “I” statements such as

• “I feel …………………..(describe how you are feeling about it)”
• “Because ………………(describe the consequence or result for you)”

1. Enabling resolution by expressing what B needed: “So what I need…….”

Neighbour B was asked to avoid ordering, threatening, blaming, labelling or moralising.

Exercise 4 was done as a group and we looked at various different scenarios to establish who had the problem, and whether our role was to coach (where the problem doesn’t involve us), express our concerns without blame (where we have the problem with someone else), understand and empathise (where another person has a problem with us) or mediate (when we each have a problem with the other). Janine explained at the outset that she deliberately talked about wise ways to handle conflict, rather than conflict resolution, as there are occasions where it is too dangerous or inappropriate to try to resolve the conflict, or even where a good row is necessary to clear the air!

It was clear that, although there is a huge amount of psychology theory behind how to handle conflict, as future “practitioners” the important thing was to put into practice the skills we had learnt in these exercises. For those who wanted to know more about the theory, Janine recommended “Empathy” by Roman Krznaric 2014 or “Zero Degrees of Empathy” by Simon Baron-Cohen (2011).  (Summary: Sarah Zins)