Phase II: Storytelling/Venting and Summarising

Introduction:

After phase I, the mediator’s opening statement, the next phase in mediation is the storytelling phase. This note will discuss this phase in terms of its meaning, the role of the mediator, benefits for both the parties and the mediator, when to commence, and common pitfalls to avoid in this phase.

Meaning of Storytelling or Venting:

At this stage, the disputants are allowed to make opening statements. In these statements, each disputant explains their perspective of the conflict, providing their version of events and expressing their emotions freely without interruptions from the other party. It is for this reason that this phase is called the venting phase.

Per the course manual on Alternative Dispute Resolution, the purpose of this phase is to allow the parties to share their side of the story without interruptions, explore the issues and feelings surrounding the dispute, summarise relevant information and issues, and create an environment for understanding.

At this stage, the ground rule of allowing one party to speak at a time becomes extremely important.

Role of the Mediator in the Storytelling or Venting Phase:

According to McCorkle and Reese [1], at this stage, the mediator, while listening to the story of each party,

1. Validates when needed;
2. Explores when clarification is required; and
3. Identifies key issues or interests.

Similarly, in the course manual, the task of the mediator at this stage is as follows:

1. Ensure agreement on who speaks first
2. Listen
3. Take salient and confidential notes
4. Clarify facts and feelings.

Benefits of the Storytelling Phase for Disputants:

1. Makes Individual Disputants Feel Heard: When a disputant is allowed to speak and freely express himself without interruptions, it has the benefit of making him feel that his views, interests, fears, and reservations are being heard. According to McCorkle and Reese [1], the storytelling phase may be the first chance for a disputant to tell his story in full and may also be the first time the disputant tells his story in full.

2. Individual Disputants Have their Concerns Acknowledged : When a disputant vents and the mediator and the other party listen, he may feel that his ideas are being considered and valued and not dismissed as trivial.

Benefits of the Storytelling Phase for Mediators:

1. Helps the Mediator Separate Interests from Positions: While the parties are venting without interruptions, the mediator may gain insights into the interests that underpin their respective positions.

2. Identifies Issues to be Resolved: During the venting, the mediator can identify the issues to be negotiated. The issues are the areas of disagreement which, when resolved, essentially resolve the dispute. In identifying the issues, the negotiator must also identify issues that can be negotiated and those that cannot be negotiated. McCorkle and Reese [1] cited Moore (2003) as identifying the following three types of issues that can be negotiated:

1. Substantive issues: These are issues that revolve around the cause and desired outcomes of the dispute.
2. Procedural issues: These are issues that revolve around how things are to be done, such as how information is to be shared and how records are to be kept. The authors recommend that these issues be resolved first to create a history of successful negotiation and to develop trust in the capacity of the mediation process to resolve the dispute.
3. Psychological or emotional issues: These are issues in the nature of emotions, such as hurt feelings. These issues must be identified and resolved, as they can impede the ability of the parties to talk to each other.

3. Helps Identify Common Ground:Beyond identifying the areas of dispute (issues), the venting phase helps the mediator to identify common ground, which are areas where the disputants are in agreement or have similar interests. From this common ground, the parties can work towards achieving mutually acceptable solutions.

Common Pitfalls in Storytelling and How to Overcome Those Pitfalls:

Pitfall 1: Unchecked Power Differences:

It should not be assumed that parties to a mediation have the same capacity in terms of communication. It is common for one party to be a great communicator and for the other party to be bad at communicating and expressing his views.

A suggestion to deal with this is letting the weaker party speak first so they do not feel dominated once the stronger party is done speaking.

Pitfall 2: Allowing Blaming and Attacking:

In storytelling, parties may blame and attack each other. According to McCorkle and Reese [1], disputants often see each other as the problem and do not want to take responsibility for the dispute.

A suggestion to deal with this is to include in the ground rules that personal attacks will not be tolerated. Another suggestion is to encourage the parties to focus on how the other party’s actions have affected them, rather than resort to personal attacks. This approach shifts the conversation from blame to personal impact. According to McCorkle and Reese [1], if a party says, “He’s a sexual harasser and should be fired,” the mediator can reframe this as “You want to be respected and to have a fair outcome to this mediation. Let’s discuss how you were affected by those comments. ”

Pitfall 3: Acting on Overstatements or Generalisations:

According to McCorkle and Reese [1], disputants often use absolute terms like “never” or always to paint the other party’s behaviour with the broadest brush possible. For instance, a husband may say, “She never appreciates anything I do.”

To deal with this, the authors suggest that the mediator asks for examples and then follows up by asking about the consequences of the other party’s conduct. For instance, if a husband says, “She never appreciates anything I do,” the mediator could say, “Could you please tell me a time when she did not appreciate something you did and how that affected you?” By doing this, the mediator encourages the disputant to move away from exaggerations and toward specific, concrete examples. Further, by prompting the disputant to recall specific instances, the mediator helps him to see whether his claim holds universally or if there are exceptions. Further, when the disputant speaks about how the other party’s actions affected him, the other party is more likely to listen because she is not being personally attacked.

Pitfall 4: The Mediator Taking Sides:

Disputants may subtly invite the mediator to take sides. They do this by asking, “Do you see my point?” “Do you understand where I’m coming from?” among others. It is essential that the mediator does not take any sides or appear to be taking sides.

When the disputants subtly invite the mediator to take sides by asking such questions, the mediator should redirect the query back to the asking party. Per the learned McCorkle and Reese [1], the mediator could say, “I can see that this has been a frustrating time for you. How have you handled the situation up until now?” Furthermore, the mediator can reassert his neutrality by saying that his opinion is not really relevant at this point.

Pitfall 5: Permitting Interrupting and Bickering:

When a party is venting and often making personal attacks, the other party may be pushed to interfere. If this goes unchecked, it can spiral out of control and lead to a heated back-and-forth exchange.

Among others, the disputants can be told to write down their concerns and express them later. The mediator can also make reference to the ground rules. The mediator can also caucus, thus meet the parties privately and explain to them the importance of being non-disruptive. Finally, the mediator can also inform the parties that he has trouble following the conversation if two people are talking at the same time.

Pitfall 6: Letting One Party Monopolise Time or Control the Process:

In a mediation, it is possible for a strong party to attempt to control the process. He talks for several hours and interjects whenever he wants, among other things. This often happens when one party repeats the same issues and ideas and tells more stories.

To deal with this, the mediator must reassert himself as the person with the role to control the process. In addition, the mediator may summarise and itemise all that the disputant has said to assure him that all his submissions have been noted and there is no need to repeat those same submissions for hours.

Pitfall 7: Being Overwhelmed with Evidence:

Sometimes, parties to a mediation may come to the mediation table with evidence to support their case and get the mediator to see things their way. These pieces of evidence can get overwhelming.

The mediator must remind the parties that mediation is not about proving who is right or wrong but about finding a mutually acceptable resolution. Further, he must emphasise that mediation is different from a court proceeding, where legal evidence plays a more central role. The mediator may also ask parties to explain their concerns in their own words rather than relying solely on documents. This can make the discussion more personal and solution-oriented rather than evidence-driven.