Yes, the views expressed were similar and divergent. And it was interesting, stimulating, thoughtful and thought provoking. And I was still resonating with my tribe! And indeed, even more so because of the similar and divergent. But wait! Have you ever been with one of your tribes, and you’re feeling that closeness, that coziness, with similar views… but there is no divergence? Everyone just chimes in and thinks the same way? When this happens your tribe can lose its dynamism among members as it begins to conform and it can lose its ability for creative problem solving within the group. As if this is not enough to be on alert for, I think there is something even more insidious that happens all around us in what I will call Tribe Think. Just as any of us might start feeling good and our little grasshopper legs seemingly in chorus with each other in our tribes, we must be on guard for Tribe Think. None of us is immune from Tribe Think. ADR practitioners are not immune from Tribe Think.

What is Tribe Think? First of all, finding your tribe and having the experience of being part of a tribe is a very warm, comfortable and often inclusive experience. So what’s wrong with that? Nothing. Nothing at all…until…. the coziness of the tribe becomes resistant to views outside the tribe or not held by the majority of the tribe. These views might not only better inform the tribe but they could help with better problem solving within the tribe, and just as importantly, with better relations between those in the tribe and those not in the tribe. This is critical to society.

Tribe Think is also the togetherness of alliances in opposition to a third view that create triangles that tear down communities both within the tribe and outside the tribe in the short and long run. For instance, ever been in a group, even a gathering of colleagues or friends, where even the acknowledgement of the existence of an outside differing view was found unacceptable or trivialized or put down? Where there was an inability to have curious inquiry into outside views? Where the wall came down and there was no ability to offer any respect for an opposing view? When there was a knee jerk type response that quickly diminished an opposing view or even vilified it? Or when the very tribe you found yourself in was formed to oppose someone external to the tribe and when asked later no one can even explain the why anymore with any real sense but they know they are against someone? That is Tribe Think.

Sure, we can think similarly and find others who share our views; that’s how we often form many of our communities, and that’s how we move ideas forward. But our views will likely not be fully informed or propel greater well-being if we are not able to bring in other voices of those who disagree with us or who simply have a different experience. Indeed, if we were to inquire with respect and curiosity, we may not even be as opposed to the other in the way Tribe Think wants us to be. Tribe Think can be dangerous for our relationships. Tribe Think can be dangerous for our Tribes! Tribe Think can be dangerous for our communities. Tribe Think can stifle our ability to engage as a society.

Over the next month, notice your tribes. Notice if you are part of a tribe that has lost its ability to think independently within the tribe. Notice if your tribe is not able to acknowledge, with respect, a view that differs from the tribe’s stated view. Notice if you are part of a tribe that formed its identity on being against something or someone. Can you think of a group you’ve been in where you became aware of Tribe Think? What were the clues? Not perpetuating Tribe Think is another aspect of a relational practice. What if you were the courageous voice to model relational engagement of an unpopular view?

The post Tribe Think appeared first on Baltimore Mediation.

thinking deeply about Relational Practices and how Dr. King’s message and life was a model of being relational. Dr. King stirred us with his words, “Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities, which have surrendered to hatred and violence. For the salvation of our nation and the salvation of mankind, we must follow another way. This does not mean that we abandon our righteous efforts…But we shall not, in the process, relinquish our privilege and obligation to love…This is the only way to create beloved communities.”

Imagine that, one of the greatest leaders the US has known spoke of the only way to save mankind is to love. It’s as haunting a statement as “Time is cluttered with the wreckage of communities.” What did he mean to love? Stated most plainly, he left us with a challenge that we might be more conscious, that we might think and act in ways that are more aware of human impact for good rather than suffering, to disagree and work towards what we believe in, but never at the expense of human dignity and life, that we might strive ever for what is good for the whole, for both the powerful and the marginalized. For all.

His invitation to follow another way is timeless. It is now. I want to accept that invitation and invite you to join me. Here is one way for each of us, as dispute resolution professionals, and as human beings, to take up Dr. King’s challenge, which is a relational challenge.

Daily, weekly, we all encounter Tribe Think. I’m speaking of the kind of thinking we join with that gains its momentum by opposing another person or group that espouses a different point of view. The examples are myriad these days from politics to the environment to healthcare. I want to resist joining in tribe think and respond instead with the kind of strength that is strong enough to love.

Most of us find safety being connected to groups that we like with like-minded thinkers. I know I do, and I think of such groups as my tribes, and it feels good because I feel at ease with my tribes; we “get” each other. But it’s especially when we are with our tribes that we must stay alert to those times when our tribes begin tribal-like thinking. You know, the kind of thinking that excludes divergent thought or ways or ideas, the kind of thinking that will not tolerate or even allow for the acknowledgment of an opposing view, the kind of thought that forgets how to be curious, how to be respectful, the kind of thought that is so narrow it shuts down and is no longer able to engage with others who are not part of the tribe, no longer able to be creative or to problem-solve with others outside the tribe, and often relying on drowning out the voices of those not in the tribe relying on shaming to ensure the prevailing tribe view stays prevailing. Tribe Think.

The Adversarial Ethic is alive and well with Tribe Think. It’s easier to vilify and shame than to be open, inquiring and problem-solving. When you’re caught up in Tribe Think, it’s easier to hate than to love.

Dr. King was right about the other way. It takes moral courage every day for each of us to not perpetuate hatred and violence. It does. It’s all around us. Yes, it can be a momentary release to rail against someone who opposes your views. Yes, it can feel good in the moment to join others in condemning someone or something that does not meet our standards. Before we realize it though, we can be swept into Tribe Think used as a weapon to amass a larger base of support, to gain more power for our own group, all at the expense of someone else or group. We can become pawns in an insidious phenomenon. Whenever we put down, marginalize, or demonize a person or a group, any person or group, we simply add to the clutter of the wreckage of our communities.

I don’t want to add to the clutter of the wreckage of our communities. And I imagine you don’t either. There is a different way to be, to negotiate, to advocate. A different way to hold differences. It’s part of the Relational Practices movement. Dr. King laid out what is at the core of a relational way: it’s a way of love. Are you strong enough to stand for something while also loving your opponent as a human being? Are you courageous enough to stand up for something while still respecting the dignity of your opponent?

I recently attended our ABA Dispute Resolution conference where Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) was our keynote speaker. He said President Trump had it right that we have an immigration problem. He said he disagreed on how to solve it and shared the details of some of the behind the scenes negotiations with the Problem Solving Caucus. The ABA crowd cheered his remarks about the Dreamers, but without getting caught up in that, he then stated that the wall the President wants to build spurred attention to a very real problem facing the US. I found it to be a brilliant shiny relational example, a courageous model of the kind of love Martin Luther King was urging us to do. Senator Kaine stood strong for his goals on behalf of the Dreamers; he also chose not to demonize his opponent. Indeed, he acknowledged his opponent’s view and found something of value in it. And he was more effective as a result. He didn’t lose his credibility or authority; he gained moral ground as a result of the way he chose, a way I believe MLK would have said was a way of love.

We must be vigilant and not allow our Tribe Think to be fueled by hatred. How might you respond when you realize you are getting sucked into Tribe Think? One simple powerful way is to allow for and be curious about dissenting opinions. Acknowledge them without spite. Invite them, especially if they are wildly different than the ones you like or agree with. Make room for them at your table, in your conversation, in your offices without vilifying, sneering, making fun of, or demeaning them. If those who espouse the view are not available, name the viewpoint, without disdain. It’s ok to oppose the viewpoint. You may oppose vigorously, but not at the expense of the humanity behind the viewpoint. You may stand strong and with conviction for something, but not 3 in a way that annihilates the dignity of the other person or the group or incites violence and hatred against them.

And if you are in a law school, a way to bring love (a/k/a social justice) into any classroom would be to model it in the teaching method itself. Imagine law professors who had the moral courage to acknowledge minority political views, views that maybe no one in the school espoused, in respectful ways. To give voice to them without umbridge and disgust. Imagine law students who felt safe enough and had the courage to voice those other views and were not marginalized or made to feel small or stupid. In our current political climate, this may be especially hard. But we all have the fiber to do this on both sides of the equation. It’s such a powerful antidote to hatred. It’s a relational way.

Republished with permission from the American Bar Association “Just Resolutions.” Author: Louise Phipps Senft, I Can Relate! Blog

The post I Have A Dream… appeared first on Baltimore Mediation.

Imagine if one of such letters said instead, in genuine terms, “Let’s meet in the next week or two to see if we can more fully understand what this matter is about from the perspectives of both sides.” That would be a very relational thing to do. That would be a kind thing to do, a relational way to use our power. Even if the client reported the other person was crazy or unreasonable or a bully. An attorney with a relational mindset, and a relational practice, would write such a letter. And the cost of that letter and the cost of that meeting would be very worthwhile to the client. We know, don’t we, that if a meeting were to happen, with just one person (you) taking a relational approach, that the matter would likely be much better understood, even resolved, with an apology, an offer, a change, a dismissal. And if not resolved, significantly narrowed, so it could then be unbundled for other appropriate options. So many conflicts are premised on incomplete information or fractured perceptions. Nothing takes the place of face-toface dialogue.

Attorneys taking a relational approach promote more engagement because we understand the reality of the human conflict experience (fear and suspiciousness) which breeds distortion and inaccuracy. Taking a relational approach believes that the other side of that conflict coin is the human capacity to engage, even when hurt, self-absorbed, and uncertain. It might take more than one time to reach out and offer to meet, to talk, to engage; it might take numerous times, and it might take different forms, it might even take more effort, more patience, and perhaps more courage, not only on the part of the client, but on the part of the lawyer. Relentless engagement is part of relational practice. Try it. And try again. And, if you are stonewalled, then perhaps a lawsuit gets filed. A lawyer who is practicing relationally will then soon file a “Motion to Mediate.” I first wrote about motions to mediate over twenty years ago. Since then, Courts love to see motions to mediate. It shows good faith. It shows a good civil practice. It shows a relational practice. Try, try, try again. Practice relationally. Live relationally. Your grandmother knew what she was talking about. You’ll create more well-being for others. And for yourself.

Republished with permission from the American Bar Association “Just Resolutions.” Author: Louise Phipps Senft, I Can Relate! Blog

The post Try, Try Again appeared first on Baltimore Mediation.

I recall testifying in our Maryland state legislature back in the late 1980’s on the issue of child support collection, making a case for why recalcitrant and delinquent payors, mainly fathers, should have their driver’s licenses as well as professional licenses suspended until they were caught up in child support payments or had worked out arrearages payment plans. In many cases, child support had not been paid for years. I remember being shocked, almost a feeling of vicarious shame, when I learned through my own research that one of the largest groups of nonpayors, given the pejorative label of “dead beat dads”, were lawyers. It was like I had been gut punched. I remember it clearly. My own profession.

It all came flooding back to me recently when I read the report of the LWB. And it all makes sense now. It’s sobering and heartbreaking. All those deadbeat lawyer dads were the canaries in the mine. And we didn’t pay attention.

But we are now.

Ironically, however, the recent interest in lawyer well-being is due to the causal connection to protecting clients. As it turns out, there is a hand and glove relationship between lawyer wellbeing and fitness to practice law. And the report is not just talking about professionalism; it’s linking lawyer well-being to lawyer competence. The report spells out in stark terms that lawyers whose well-being is in jeopardy are likely to make more mistakes and errors in legal judgment, compromising professional competence. This can and does harm clients. And ultimately, this harms society.

But what about the well-being of the lawyers themselves? What about the causal effect on the system: the suffering of family members of those lawyers whose eroded well-being is showing up in depression, suicide attempts, lack of personal financial accountability, alcoholism and other addictions to name a few? What about the causal effect on the system: the suffering of lawyers in their interactions with other lawyers. If we looked inward as reflective practitioners, we might find that this is not just a professional crisis, but a crisis for each individual professional within the profession itself.

Over the years, young lawyers have asked for and bar associations have found it necessary to write codes of civility for the courtroom; most local bar associations have instituted attorney hotlines for lawyers and lawyer assistance programs. These are all good. And yet, the profession finds itself in precarious mental health. I believe there is a deeper more philosophical divide that is worth exploring related to the erosion of lawyer well-being.

I call it the crisis of The Adversarial Ethic. I think it’s worth exploring as a root cause. It seems that few would argue to the contrary that The Adversarial Ethic is what has chipped away at the quality of many lawyers’ practices over the years. It has also chipped away at their well-being. It’s The Adversarial Ethic that prompts lawyers to view every accident, every gone wrong interaction, every job hire, every termination, every partnership created, every marriage, every matrimonial dispute as one where someone could sue someone else. It’s The Adversarial Ethic that causes lawyers to view their clients as legal issues rather than human beings, no longer taking into the account the enormous wear and tear the adversarial ethic has on people’s lives. It’s The Adversarial Ethic greed that has pitted law partners in firms against each other. It’s The Adversarial Ethic narrow mindedness that causes lawyers to see negotiations as just about the money. It’s the Adversarial Ethic ego that reduces many if not most interactions of lawyers, especially litigators, on behalf of their clients with other lawyers on behalf of their clients as mere transactions, who can one-up, who can outwit, who can get most. And these are just a few examples. Over the decades, the Adversarial Ethic has wormed its way into the psyche of the legal profession and has caused great damage to the people, and to the lawyers. Afterall, it’s very difficult for any person to be one way professionally and another way personally for very long. At some point the suffering and energy The Adversarial Ethic takes to carry on takes too much, and the poison turns inward.

But this doesn’t have to be the final prognosis for our profession. A growing number of competent, effective, successful legal practitioners have made a choice to not be driven by The Adversarial Ethic. They have chosen to be guided by a Relational approach, whether intentional or as a by product of an alternative change in practice. A relational approach is the opposite of a transactional or adversarial approach. It is perhaps a softer approach, not because it is soft. Being Relational is not soft. But it does produce greater ease in interactions and greater well-being in outcomes. It is strong enough to stand up and to sit down. It is strong enough to be vulnerable, to be introspective, to be other oriented, to be open, to be engaging and curious. A more relational practice involves awareness of one’s responsibility to self and to other, mindful of the impact within a larger system. A relational practice takes an optimistic view of people, problems and what is possible. Relational Practices can change every interaction. They can also change an entire way to practice. And that is just a sample! The time has come. The time is now to look harder at The Adversarial Ethic and consider another approach, a stronger approach.

As any schooled dispute resolution practitioner knows, crisis and opportunity are two sides of the same coin. While the LWB painted for us a bleak landscape, the ABA commissioned another group to be responsive: The Task Force on Relational Practices. Members of this task force, joined by a growing number of other like-minded legal practitioners, believe in exploring that deeper more philosophical divide that has caused the erosion of well-being in the legal profession, waking up to that canary and mining the Relational option.

What do you think about The Adversarial Ethic? Have you been a victim of the erosion of wellbeing yourself? Have you been a witness of the erosion or do you know others who are casualties of The Adversarial Ethic? What do you think about a Relational Approach? If you have any reactions or stories you’d like to share re this blog, please send them to Louise@BaltimoreMediation.com. Your views and stories are welcomed.

Republished with permission from the American Bar Association “Just Resolutions.” Author: Louise Phipps Senft, I Can Relate! Blog

The post I Can Relate! appeared first on Baltimore Mediation.

Are we courageous enough to act from the heart? When our Relational Mindset informs our behavior, it’s a relational practice. When we act relationally, our hearts are more open and we are able to receive data and information we may have otherwise missed in a transactional world. But to act relationally often takes courage, strong enough to be open to our hearts and strong enough to be vulnerable. Who wants to be vulnerable? If we choose to practice relationally, we run the risk of tapping into our hearts and exposing our egos. But this risk doesn’t mean we lose our intellects; it doesn’t mean we lose our ability to think clearly. It means that the lens through which we view the world just got wider; we are more connected with our reality and others. We actually become more expansive in our thinking. And that leads to better interactions, better decisions and better outcomes. But do we have the strength to be vulnerable like this?

Transactional thinking and actions surround us in law practice, ADR practice, business and life. You know, getting what you can, even at the expense of another; holding firm that your view is better than another’s. How about those transactional tendencies when you advise your clients how to protect themselves, assuming the worst about others, or when you advise your clients how to maximize their needs over another’s and even to the exclusion of the other’s, or even to the annihilation of the other’s needs. Or outside the office when you pass along information that is not fully truthful for the sake of a chuckle or a tittle, or you don’t speak up when someone is belittled. Or even when you are moving too fast to stop and hold the door for the person behind you… yes, transactional thinking and behavior permeates our everyday lives, especially for us as lawyers and advocates. And it doesn’t mean we have acted in a bad way necessarily. It’s rather that there is something else, another way, a relational way.

What would it be like if you had the courage, the resolve, the love, the care to do even one of these acts differently today. Just one. For instance, when you hear a comment from another that you really disagree with, what if you responded, Maybe… and maybe not and then added your view, leaving the space open for dialogue, open for their view, open to have your thinking expand and even sharpened. What if when you talked with your client 2 instead of strategizing how to maximize what you can get for him, instead you asked, What is it that you think the other party wants and needs, and is that something you might consider giving them while we request x for you? What if when you knew of a colleague’s or a community member’s ill fate and someone asked you about the status and instead of passing along that they are probably still in treatment or still crazy or still estranged or whatever, you instead said, I’m not sure but I hope they are better, got the help they needed, have a second chance. What if you paused today at one entry way, one elevator, and looked at the person behind you and held the door open for them with a, Have a nice day. What if….

These are Relational Practices. And that’s what love has to do with it. Strong enough to care for others while not losing yourself. Strong enough to be vulnerable. It creates greater well-being for the whole, doesn’t it? It feels good to them. And it feels good for you, right? You literally can feel well-being. That’s what I call Relational Reciprocity. Relational practices are motivated by a desire to create more well-being for ourselves and others, at the same time, in the same interaction, in the same choice. And the more we act from the heart, the stronger we become. The more relational you are with others, the more relational they will be with you. What do you think about a Relational Approach? If you have any reactions or stories you’d like to share re this article, please send them to Louise@BaltimoreMediation.com. Your views and stories are welcomed. Louise Phipps Senft is a Chair of the Relational Practices Task Force and author of the bestseller, Being Relational: The Seven Ways to Quality Interaction and Lasting Change (HCI 2015). She is the founder of Baltimore Mediation (1993) and is an international mediator with a practice in catastrophic injury and complex business, divorce, and estate conflict. She is a nationally recognized trainer in relational theory and practice and transformative mediation.

Republished with permission from the American Bar Association “Just Resolutions.” Author: Louise Phipps Senft, I Can Relate! Blog

The post What’s Love Got to Do With It? appeared first on Baltimore Mediation.