Why Don’t Men See It Coming?

I’m a family mediator. I get in the middle of other people’s problems. Things can get loud at times, but I wouldn’t be invited if things were going well.

My clients are most often couples seeking to separate or to save their marriage, but may be siblings who have fallen out of touch, parents at odds with their teenage children or adult children disagreeing about end of life care for their elderly parent. Every situation is unique.

The primary goal, however, is nearly always the same: to find answers to the issues that keep triggering conflict in the relationship. In short, to improve communication.

Participants are often shocked by how quickly they reach agreement, once they get to the table. As the mediator, I’m shocked by how long it takes them to get to the table.  

Here’s another puzzling thing I’ve noticed: it’s almost always the woman who reaches out first.

Untitled design (7).png

I’ve had dozens and dozens of cases in my career, and in more than 80% of those cases, the first contact is initiated by a female. What’s going on with that? Why are women the ones who seek help? There are just as many men as women in difficult relationships, just as many men who are suffering emotional pain or hanging on in situations that are stressful.

Why aren’t the men doing the google search and emailing or picking up the phone? 

Take heterosexual couples for example. Almost every case is initiated by the woman, who reports she is “living in parallel”, experiencing minimal intimacy or feeling taken for granted. The man may be a good father, yet acts like he’s on auto-pilot in the relationship, shrugging off her complaints saying “things aren’t really that bad”, dismissing her unhappiness as “an over-reaction”, avoiding the conversation by saying “why can’t we just relax and have fun like we used to?”.

He may look like he doesn’t care but most often he does and just doesn’t know how to express it. That’s what’s so tragic. When she finally says “I’m fed up. I want a divorce,” he feels blindsided. By the time they arrive in mediation he’s the one who presents as most devastated. 

Once our work begins, men are equally able to listen respectfully, to articulate their needs and collaborate on solutions. They are as willing as the women to practice the communication skills I teach, and just as appreciative when they succeed.

So why aren’t they as quick to admit the dysfunction and seek solutions before things fall off the rails?

Is there a way to shake men awake before they wake up alone? Anything helpful you or I can say?

The vulnerability that some men fear (and therefore avoid) is actually the door to their deepest strength and connection. The door can be opened with honest communication, if only they could see it that way.

If you have any thoughts on how to pass men the key, please share your suggestions in the comments below.

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 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

Marriage Story: The aikido Approach

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. 

couple-4641033__340.jpg

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?”

family-1466262_1920.jpg

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 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

Practicing Co-operative Opposition

What if your yoga practice could help heal distress and resolve interpersonal conflict?

It can. Cooperation between opposing forces is the key to reaching peace. It’s not about erasing differences but balancing both sides. This is true on the yoga mat and at the negotiation table. Tensions in your body and conflict between bodies can’t be realistically resolved by getting rid of differences.

Read more

Emotional Intelligence Saves A Difficult Conversation

Three of us were seated around a table in my office, three hours into difficult divorce negotiations.  The couple had made progress around childcare and custody issues, but tension reached a critical point when the topic shifted to finances.

His opening salvo pulled no punches.  “I understand I’ll need to contribute spousal and child support.  We’ll get down to those numbers later.  But no way am I going to keep paying for all the additional tutoring and special education classes you’ve got the kids enrolled in.  None of it is necessary.”

Her agitation was palpable.  Colour rose to her face and she shifted uncomfortably in her chair.  I raised my hand with the “time out” sign.

She waved me off.  “It’s ok,” she said.  “I’ve been practicing.”  She was referring to a private session she had requested a few days earlier to work on ways to stop losing her temper.  I had explained about "neural hijackings", how the emotional brain gets overloaded by stress and triggers the fight-or-flight response, short-circuiting our capacity for rational thought.  These automatic hijackings are natural but devastating.  There is good news too, since strategies can be learned to enhance E.Q. (emotional intelligence) and prevent this loss of control.

She had rehearsed ways to recognize the anger before it exploded.  We had done some calming breath work, which she promised to practice daily.  I had also role-played being a verbal aggressor so she could practice the calm, inquisitive responses of Active Listening to defuse the cycle of anger. 

I watched, impressed, as she calmed herself with a long, slow breath. 

“What you're saying is new to me,” she spoke in an even tone.  “Please explain your reasoning.  We’ve been supporting these special education classes for over three years.  Why do you think they’re unimportant now?”

I was impressed.  This was textbook Active Listening.  Instead of blowing up and derailing the conversation, she was respectfully inquiring into the other person’s thinking without making any negative comments about his character or accusations about his motives. 

The tone of his reply seemed to be scaled down a notch.  He stated that he thought three years should be enough.  “If the learning disabilities haven’t been corrected in three years then it was a waste of time and money.  Now that we’re supporting two homes we are both less wealthy.  We need to cut costs somewhere and this is a good place to start.”

She replied that she didn’t agree.  But instead of getting frustrated and reverting to attack mode, as she would have done previously, she went straight to Plan B.  “Look,” she said, “We clearly don’t agree on this point.  I suggest we put it aside for now.  Let’s both think about it.  Perhaps later it can be a bargaining chip.  If we still can’t agree, let’s ask for advice fromthe psychologist who did the educational  assessment.  We'll do what she recommends.” 

How could he argue?  They hadn’t reached agreement on the point, but her mindfulness in the moment had prevented an emotional explosion and mapped a way to positively approach the topic in the future.

She reminded me once again that E.Q. really can be learned.

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 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

The Economics of Accountability

My job as a conflict mediator is built on skills I learned as a high school owner and teacher.

A few years ago I had a student and his mother in my office one morning, glaring across at each other.  The school day had not yet begun but they were already hard at it, locked in stubborn conflict. 

Mom: “He doesn’t do a stitch of homework, any more than he helps out around the house.  And that’s zero.   I swear, if it wasn’t to eat and borrow the car he’d probably never come home.”

Son: “Which might make all of us happier.  It’s a madhouse when I am home.  I don’t get any freedom and all you do is nag.”

Mom: “What else can I do?  You’re in this expensive private school so you can get into university.  If it wasn’t for my nagging you’d never get accepted.”

I stepped in, “Let’s look at what you’re both saying.  You’ve described a perfect lose-lose arrangement.   If you are correct, Mrs. Wilson, then even if Evan gets acceptance, the credit will go to your nagging, and he’ll be set up for disaster when nobody is there to nag him.  And Evan, you’re so angry at your mom you’re prepared to sabotage your own success. ”

I continued.  “This is a classic vicious circle.  It can actually get a lot worse, or we can make an agreement right now to spin it the other way, into a positive spiral.”

“Really?” He asked, “What are we talking about?  Brain transplant?”

“More like a behavioural transplant,” I answered.  “But it has to be both of you.”

“I’ll try anything,” the mother said.

“What about you, Evan?  Be honest with me, do you actually want to go to university, or is that your mother’s ambition?  I know you’ve got the brain, but unless you care about being there you’d be happier setting your sights in a less academic direction.”

“Yes.  I do want university.  I’ve wanted to study science since I was a kid.  I always intend to work.  I just go nuts and flip out when she won’t leave me alone.  Then I can’t think or work at all.”

“So the more she nags the less you work, and the less you work the more she nags.  That about it?”

“Pretty much,” he smiled.

“Then let’s turn it around.  It’s time for you to grow up, Evan, and time for you, Mrs. Wilson, to let him.  I want you both to think of being a student like having a job.”

“What do you mean, “like a job”?” he asked.

“I’m talking about getting paid in privileges, one of which is not to be nagged.  Prove to your mom that you CAN do the work on your own, that you’re actually ready to earn the freedom you want.”

“Mrs. Wilson, you need to leave him alone.  Give him one month.  Check in with his teachers for academic updates but don’t pester him.  Pay him with the car and other luxuries only when he’s earned his paycheck by doing his schoolwork and chores.  

Think of this as a contract to adulthood, or as I call it: the economics of accountability.”

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 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.

7 Steps To Agree Despite Uncertainty

In October 2014, when the CBC fired radio host Jian Ghomeshi for allegations of sexual misconduct, I noticed how quickly and strongly many people reacted to the news.  They were outraged.   “How dare a public corporation invade the private life of an employee.”

(Not So) Blind Justice

Those certainties evaporated shortly after when a number of women came forward and spoke of the violence they experienced at his hands.  Public opinion then swung just as quickly to the opposite certainty: he must be guilty. 

He likely is guilty, given the number of women who have spoken out.  I’m not arguing one side or the other, just observing how quickly people claim certainty. 

You can see similar patterns in other public scandals, such as Mike Duffy and the Canadian Senate seeming to be victims one day, culprits the next.  On a broader historical scale, unfounded certainties have obstructed the search for truth and justice from Galileo and the rise of science to the woman’s movement and civil rights.  As a society, and as individuals, we tend to cling to the comfort of certainty, often without bothering to examine the evidence.

If you reflect you will likely see the same pattern much closer to home.  As a mediator, trained to help people resolve interpersonal disputes, I notice that at some point in most conflicts the path to resolution is blocked by an unfounded certainty.  Consider the last interpersonal conflict you had.  Did the other party have a mistaken belief about your actions, intentions, or motives?  Or did you about theirs?  If the conflict got resolved, it’s likely because someone bothered to clear up enough of the misunderstanding to make room for trust.

I’m referring to honest conflicts, when both sides genuinely believe they are right.  In other words, most disputes.

In those situations, the story you tell yourself to justify your own position is probably fine.  After all, you know your own viewpoint.

Danger lies in the story you tell yourself about the other person’s motives.    You might think you know.  But you really don’t.   Once your interpretation becomes a conviction, you are half way toward demonizing your opponent.

Here are 7 steps to get you past unfounded certainties and help you reach agreement.

1.      Challenge your convictions.  Identify which ones are assumptions, not facts.

2.      Avoid assuming your opponent’s motives are less worthy than yours.  It’s healthier and more honest to adopt a neutral, open stance.

3.      Inquire.  Ask your opponent direct, open-ended questions about his or her actions, feelings, motives, goals.  

4.      Listen without challenging, contradicting or defending yourself.  (You’ll get your turn)

5.      Show them you understand their point of view.  (This doesn’t mean you share it, just that you “get” it)

6.      Express your truth calmly, taking responsibility for your actions without casting blame.

7.      Identify common interests and shared goals.

Now you are both ready to begin brainstorming for solutions based on understanding, not assumptions.

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 180 5-star reviews. To book your free consultation click here.