I teach a college course in divorce mediation and was recently delighted by the dramatic opportunity presented by two students who were role-playing an upset wife and husband. In the role of mediator, I was demonstrating the subtle art of “going with” the other person, a communication technique that entails resisting the automatic tendency to “push back” when you disagree.
The student playing the “wife” barked out something like “The kids and I would be better off if you were dead”.
These were hurtful words, utterly unhelpful to reaching agreement. The natural reaction would be to halt the exchange with a reminder that parties had previously agreed to speak respectfully. I had no intention to reprimand. Her high emotion provided me with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate the Aikido approach.
Named after an ancient martial art, the Aikido approach, when applied to conflict resolution, teaches how to neutralize an attack without inflicting harm. Rather than retaliating, shaming or proving her wrong, this non-aggressive approach accepts the other person’s position and goes with it.
“That is a surprising statement.” I responded, “Do you mean what you said?”
“I mean every word. My children and I would be far better off if he was dead.”
“You must be carrying enormous pain to have such a wish. Help me understand how you believe it would make your life and the lives of your children better if their father was dead.” I turned to the “husband” and said, “Sir, I appreciate your restraint and ask you, if you can, to listen for the next few minutes without immediately responding.”
The student playing the “wife” improvised for a few minutes, painting an elaborate portrait of her “husband” as a useless internet-gamer and compulsive YouTube addict who was completely inept in caring for his family.
At one point the “husband” interrupted, “That’s untrue. You’re exaggerating unbelievably!”
“Sir, difficult as it must be, I’m asking you to let her continue. You don’t need to agree. I am not here to gather evidence or judge who is right or wrong. We are listening to what is true from her point of view. I promise we will soon get to hear your side. Will you agree just to listen for the next few minutes?”
“Ok.” he grumbled.
“Thank you.”
Turning to her, I said, “Thank you for expressing your point of view. I understand more fully now why this divorce is important to you. Please continue. How do you believe it would it be for your family? Imagine the children after the loss of their father. How would it be for them?”
The student tried to maintain her righteous indignation, but couldn’t carry on for long. Soon, on her own, she admitted her words might have been exaggerated, “Of course, I know the kids would miss him. They would miss playing video games together. And his pancakes. It’s just unfair, that’s all. I earn the salary and I take care of him like he’s one of the kids. He doesn’t carry his weight.”
“Now you’re getting to what matters.” I said, “Carrying one’s weight is an important issue to negotiate. It sounds like you are worried that adult responsibilities are currently out of balance. Sir, do you agree it’s important to balance your parenting responsibilities?”
“Yes, of course I do.”
“Then the two of you agree on an important principle. Now you’re moving forward. Let’s continue.” Her emotions had been legitimized, not shut down, which enabled her to correct herself without being pushed to do so.
Aikido-style negotiation focuses on what makes sense, and avoids getting derailed by what doesn’t. Instead of “fighting for peace” you are “being peaceful for peace”.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mike MacConnell, founder of Reflective Mediation, is an accredited family mediator, conflict coach, educator and author. He is the highest-ranked mediator on Google in the greater Toronto area, with over 100 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.
