- Unfortunately the last day of the full-time seminar. It was a kind of summarizing session. And so some things became clearer to me. We practiced all the mediations parts in a more advanced level.

The first exercise was about confrontation-messages. The goal: Report the other's behaviour without reproaches, and let him know what the consequences may be for you and how you feel about it.

In other words: Complain but stay neutral and factual and name the (negative) consequences for you.

For example: When I want to go to work tomorrow and the fuel displays "empty," it is possible that I arrive at work late because I have to fuel the car first.

You can believe me it is incredible difficult to talk like this if you are involved in a conflict. Since the seminar is over I had alreadyseveral chances to practice this. But I cannot remember once that I could use it. (Ha! Yeah, I tried it once in conflict of my parents with my sis... They didn't take me serious.)

There is a distinction between "I"- and "you"-messages. The "I"-messages are more neutral and not so aggressive. With a few sentences we practiced to turn "you"-messages into factual "I"-messages. I had my problems with one of the examples in the exercise.

For me you haven't worked very constructively during the last part of the meeting. I am not sure if this will stay without consequences. I can imagine that afterwards you will be made seriously responsible for the unsuccessful meeting.

I was not the only one in the course who interpreted it as an "I"-message. But in fact it is better to say

When I see that you didn't work constructively I become angry (and wish that you will be made responsible for the unsuccessful meeting).

First, there is the fact, then the feeling and finally the wish. And one has to admit it sounds much better. I only wished that in every-day-life I could and would use it more. Maybe it is only a matter of practice. I keep on trying ;-)

However, transforming "you"-messages into "I"-messages is a crucial tool for the mediator. So it would be the mediator in our example who would say then:

If I understand you right, when you see that Mr. B does not work constructively you become angry and wish that he will be made responsible.

The Stages of Mediation
We played another conflict with mediation. I was a husband who complained about his wife that she always leaves the windows open.

1. Explain mediation and get agreement

2. Listen and understand both points of view
You can ask back if something remains unclear to the mediator (and thus maybe to the conflict partner).

3. Find the personal meaning of the conflict
The real conflict is in most cases deeper than the shallow conflict on the surface. In our example with the married couple both sides brought up more and more accusations. Finally the conflict on the ground came out. The wife felt lonely because her husband is at work all day long. (To keep it simple) [I was surprised how well playing conflicts works! Pretty realistic!]

4. "From the past into the future"
"And now imagine you are in the role of the other person" the mediator says. The conflict partners have to change the perspective. (Shall create empathy I think.) I am not sure if this always helps to open both sides for other opinions. In our played situations it worked. Then, it can be spoken about how it can be in the future. A brainstorming can help. The ideas can also be over-emphasized and ridiculous. This helps to relax the situation (a bit). ["Burn down everything, get paid off by the insurance"]

5. Reconciliation
If everything went well the conflict partners reconcile. However it can take several sessions. There is no compromise but a win-win situation.

The seminar ended. -But not my interest in mediation. I don't want to become a professional mediator! No! It is not a profitable business. You can only do it because you feel like but make no money with it. (At least not in Germany.) And if you want to study mediation you even have to pay. Most mediators do voluntary work in associations throughout Germany. What I mean is that our every-day communication can be improved by keeping in mind some of the mediation rules. It will not always work of course. -Either because we are "just" humans or because the situation is not suitable for violence-free communication. The coursed has given me a lot and actually I want to encourage everyone to think about some of the issues spoken about there. I think that violence-free communication makes successful if it is in the job or in the relationship. My experience is that it is not easy to practice it but it is definitely worth it.

Actually I planned to review my notes, the handouts and the lesson directly afterwards, on the same day. But things developed different and so I am a little bit behind. Nevertheless I will try to summarize a little in short notes.

On day 1 the lesson was about expressing feelings and about winning and loosing in situations. Day 2 was about active listening. And it was different from what I thought active listening would be during the seminar.

I thought that all one has to do is to be attentive or to signalize attention to the conversation partner. Now, however, I know that active listening means actually listening and summarizing.

We made some exercises. On a handout there were beginnings of sentences which shall help to give feedback. For example:

You feel that… / In your eyes… / It seems to you… / From your standpoint… / With other words… / etc.

In mediation it is crucial to express oneself and the other’s point of view as clear as possible. A simple scheme shall help:

Observation: If I (you) see/ hear that…
Feelings: I (you) feel…
Needs: because I (you) have the need for…
Wish/plea: I (you) want from you (me) that you (I)…

In conflict situations the listener repeats everything he/she understood. When criticizing, it is important to have positive things first and THEN negative remarks. “I liked that you explained this once more, but could you please go more into detail about that.”

The listener shall give feedback however must not tell about own things or built “bridges” in conversation gaps.

I had my first mediation that day. I asked the course leader if I can do one. It was a catastrophe. In the morning I still felt quite sure that I can handle it. Then, after having talked so much about active listening, I felt unsure. We had a simulated situation with two aggressively shouting people. I tried to apply those new learned things but soon felt that the situation gets out of control. In the evaluation I heard that it actually was not and that it was quite okay for a beginner. Well, I learned a lot although I aborted the simulation in the middle. I thought my mediation would make no progress because the arguing partners didn’t want to listen neither to each other nor to me. I felt lacking of a “mediation-concept,” a general receipt where nothing can go wrong… I don’t know if something like this exists. -Probably not. Mediation is probably a matter of practice. That’s why I want to try it again. And by the way… not more than 30% of all mediations are successful anyway.

Finally I had the chance to meet a real mediator. At the moment there is a seminar at the Medienanstalt Sachsen-Anhalt. I attend there in order to get to know more about mediation.

The participants are three women, a girl and me. Five. This is way too small the course leader said. The ideal group would be seven till ten. However, I like smaller groups better. It is easier to get in touch with the people and to open oneself.

The mediator said he is in a foundation. I suspect that it may be the same the newspaper article is about. But I am not sure. I will ask him occasionally. He is very friendly and maybe I can stay in touch with him even beyond this seminar and suggest cooperation between him and the university. He already said that he had supervised a group of pedagogic students once.

Today, everybody had to fill out several sheets with personal questions to conflicts and our behaviour. We also discussed the aspect of winner and looser in conflicts. The result was that also the winner is a looser because he/she has to defend his/her victory against others.

Every conflict shall cause from a problem. Logical. And every conflict shall be caused because of a lack in personal needs. Interesting. And when we speak about conflicts it is always about a relationship (or else it would be a “problem” for instance). Values and dealing with those values have to be in accordance or else a conflict would result (might be also a personal conflict: driving without ticket in the tram – can be okay or not okay to you).

We trained judgement-free speaking and should become aware that interpretations (of words, gestures etc.) are only possibilities among a variety.

All in all it seems to be very complex to understand even inner-cultural communication. I wonder how it shall be in “intercultural” situations then! It would be interesting to meet an intercultural mediator one day.

Finally we were asked to read one of our conflict examples. Everybody hesitated, so I thought it would be okay to give the example. We analysed it. Two participants then played the roles and the professional mediator did his job (“on the moving staircase” as he called it because of the rapidity):

I once had a little argument with one of the other tenants in a house where I just moved to. He blamed me for twice not having switched off the lights in the stairway and basement. I felt innocent (I ALWAYS switch them off! Plus, I am SELDOMLY there!) and in the end was frustrated.

I am curious to see what we will do tomorrow.

So long!