“The mediation failed.”

This statement implies that reaching agreement is the only measure of success.  It also implies that the mediation process failed, not that the parties made a legitimate decision not to settle during a mediation session.

When you hear someone say that, does smoke come out of your ears?  Do you get hot under the collar?  Get your dander up?  Blow your top?  Go ballistic?  Blow a gasket?  Have a conniption fit?

Probably not.  But hopefully there’s a voice in your head that says something like, “Uh-oh.  That’s a problem because it promotes confusion about the purpose and nature of mediation.”

Sometimes We Don’t Speak So Good

I recently wrote Choosing to Use Good Language in the “ADR” Field to encourage colleagues to be more conscious and intentional in our use of language.  This is important because, despite the fact that we are communication experts, we use a lot of lousy language that negatively affects how people think and act in many ways.  Alas, we often speak oxymoron.

The article highlights some problematic words we often use – often without thinking about the meaning and connotations of our words including:

  • Pre-mediation
  • Opposing counsel
  • Unrepresented parties
  • Pro se
  • In good faith
  • Self-determination

And especially

  • BATNA
  • Facilitative and evaluative mediation

Our language is a shared resource.  Using problematic language reduces the value of that resource for everyone.  This is especially troublesome when it is done by thought leaders such as academics, trainers, writers, and organizational leaders.

I hope that this sensitizes you about the effects of your language and makes you more conscious and intentional in the words you choose, not limited to the ones listed above.

Speaking Dispute Resolution Well

The Choosing to Use Good Language article suggests the following criteria for good language:

  • Language should be clear and unambiguous
  • It should not be inconsistent with how people usually understand words
  • Listeners (and readers) should readily understand what the speaker (or writer) intended to communicate
  • All listeners (and readers) should have similar understandings of the speakers’ (or writers’) ideas
  • Language should include definitions, explanations, or illustrations when appropriate
  • It should avoid connotations that are confusing or unreasonably alienating to some listeners
  • Professionals should use language that clients easily understand
  • Language should avoid creating or perpetuating barriers to understanding and social divisions
  • It should promote common understanding of terms within professional communities to help accurately identify areas of agreement and disagreement

The Voice in Your Head

The voice in your head should be alert to these criteria and be prepared to sound an alarm when you hear – and are about to say – things inconsistent with these criteria.

It’s particularly important to be aware of these principles in our teaching and writing so that we don’t spread our misconceptions and problematic concepts to our students and readers.

What do you think?