Best Practice: Tools and Tips for Divorced Parents and Divorce Professionals

Melting an Iceberg

2012-03-04T07:04:00.001-06:00

One of the most significant obstacles faced by conflicted divorced parents is their fixed perceptions of the other parent – what cognitive psychologists call “iceberg beliefs” to symbolize deeply held but often unrecognized beliefs. These parents attribute negative motivations to explain the other parent’s behavior when alternate explanations are just as likely, selectively attend to information that supports their beliefs, and ignore information that disconfirms their beliefs. When I suggest that there may be alternate perspectives, a frequent response is: “You’ve been fooled, just like all the other professionals. You don’t know them like I do.”

In one instance, for example, the mother viewed the father wholly as a bully. On an occasion when he arrived early to pick up their son, she complained: “He does that to put me in the awkward position of not seeming to be ready, not having everything together so my son can leave with him.” On an occasion when he arrived late, she complained: “He’s just showing me that he can do whatever he wants, that I can’t control him.” What was the more likely explanation for the father’s varying arrival times? He drove through unpredictable Friday afternoon rush hour traffic between his work and her home.

The father, too, had fixed beliefs about his ex. He perceived her to be spoiled and entitled, someone who expected to get her way. He complained that she wouldn’t set the Friday afternoon pick up time back an hour to ease his commute because: “Her Friday night date is more important than our son getting a relaxed start to my weekends.” If his son wasn’t ready to go when he arrived to pick him up, he waited in his car and thought: “She’s letting me know that our son is really her son, forget you.”

Fixed beliefs are self-reinforcing: “I look for what I expect to see, I see it, I believe more strongly in what I expected.” When caught in such a cycle, couples typically argue the same things over and over, resist obvious compromises, see one another increasingly as caricatures (“she’s a narcissist”), and feel hostile and worn down. John Gottman calls this cycle gridlock.

Such beliefs are not without value. Holding onto these beliefs, for example, might protect the couple from feeling further let down or taken advantage: “If I expected anything different, I would only be disappointed.” The tradeoff, however, is intractable conflict, mistrust, and inefficient problem solving.

So what can one do when confronted by such biases? I will have more to say in future posts, but here is one tip if you believe the other parent has fixed negative perceptions of you: Take every opportunity to give them an alternate experience of who you are. Rather than acting in ways that reinforce the caricature, look for opportunities to demonstrate something different. Your individual efforts may not be recognized right away, but over time, their accumulated weight may just begin to melt that iceberg.

Use it (your brain) or lose it (your cool)

2012-02-26T04:31:00.000-06:00

Jane is anxious about meeting with her ex-husband and his new wife to discuss the summer parenting time schedule. She worries about becoming flustered and agreeing to something she later regrets. She even considered not meeting: “The whole thing is embarrassing and I can’t act like this is just normal.”

Like Jane, when we are emotionally engaged in a situation, we have difficulty using reasoned understanding to guide our behavior. Our perceptions narrow rather than broaden, we reach conclusions hastily and without sufficient information, and we make decisions impulsively. Sometimes our anxiety leads us to overreact, saying things we regret, arguing, or stonewalling. Children call this putting one’s mouth in gear before engaging one’s brain.

A key to successful problem solving, therefore, is to remain involved and cool headed, engaged and observant, decisive and reflective. There are several ways to do so.

First, Jane can insist upon having time after the discussion to confirm any tentative plan: “I need to sleep on this before I give it my okay.” This gives her time to evaluate the plan when she is calmer, maybe even run it by others to get their thoughts. A variation of this approach is to take “time out” during the discussion if emotions run too strong. A trip to the bathroom, five minutes to make a phone call, or a break for coffee might offer Jane the few minutes she needs to calm herself. If she continues to feel overwrought, Jane can also say she would like to continue the discussion at a later time.

A second approach is to bring someone to the discussion who understands her interests and concerns. This person has the advantage of being disengaged, providing Jane an objective view and a “voice of reason” if Jane’s emotions overwhelm her. A variation of this is to have an internal dialogue: “Now what would my friend Bill say about this proposal? Would this sound fair to Bill or would he have an objection?”

A third method is to participate and observe simultaneously. It is a process of remaining involved in the immediate discussion – but maintaining a sense of detachment by observing oneself do so at the same time. This is a hard skill to master but one of the most effective ways for Jane to improve her negotiating “presence.” Buddhists refer to this as “mindfulness,” athletes talk about “being in the zone,” and social scientists call it being a “participant-observer.” Practitioners at the Harvard Negotiation Project have coined a metaphor, “going to the balcony,” to suggest a mental way for negotiators to remain present and apart, involved and observant. This position provides a broad view from a distance.

Know your paradigm

2012-02-18T18:21:00.000-06:00

You’ve heard the terms “work mode” and “play mode.” Perhaps you’ve commented: “I’ve got my work hat on now” or “I put on my social face when we go to parties.” In other words, we match our behavior to the context to make the most of the experience. The same analogy holds true for different ways to solve a problem or to resolve an impasse. If we intend to rely upon an arbitrator, such as a judge, to make a decision for us, I best pull out my litigators’ tools. I will develop persuasive arguments for my position and against yours and approach the matter as a win-lose deal. I have no stake in the extent to which your interests are satisfied; I am only interested in meeting my own. But if we intend to negotiate a solution, I will employ my problem solving tools. I will propose compromises and mutual concessions and invent value adding tradeoffs. Most importantly, I have a stake in your interests; if yours aren’t met, we don’t have a deal. And if we don’t have a deal, my interests won’t be met either.

Litigating and negotiating are different paradigms utilizing different tools to accomplish the same goal: to resolve an impasse. A litigator’s tools (e.g., staking out a position, arguing, threatening, withholding information) are designed to win a contest. It’s all about power: “I have the stronger position.” A negotiator’s tools (e.g., proposing compromises, mutual concessions, tradeoffs, reframing) are designed to solve a problem. It’s all about mutual benefit: “I have an idea that works for both of us.”

What happens to many divorced parents, however, is that they forget the context in which they are trying to solve a problem. They use a litigator’s tools as though to win a contest rather than a negotiator’s tools to solve a problem. But without an arbitrator present, who will listen to opposing perspectives and decide? Not you or me, we’re too busy trying to score points. Does this help you understand why so many arguments end badly?

If we intend to solve a problem directly, we have to make a conscious decision to be negotiators and leave the tools of litigation behind: “I’m not here to argue or overpower you, I’m here to find solutions that work for both of us.” This means: I will listen rather than grandstand, offer mutual concessions rather than ultimatums, and suggest novel solutions instead of one-sided proposals.

Include to be included; exclude to be excluded

2012-02-11T10:13:00.002-06:00

When your ex-spouse says, “I would have told you about the meeting but I didn’t realize it mattered to you,” you may think: “You’re really saying it didn’t matter to you whether I was there.”

And when you say, “Why, I just assumed you would be okay with the decision,” your ex probably hears you saying: “You don’t have an opinion worth considering.”

And one of the worst: “The kids and I talked this over and decided.” In other words, the other parent’s opinion doesn’t count, the decision is made, forget you.

Actions like these that exclude a parent from important events and decision making severely undermine the working relationship. No one likes to feel left out. Signing the kids up for baseball without soliciting input from the other, not listing the other parent as an emergency contact, failing to pass along information about one of the children’s events. These actions convey one’s view of the other parent: irrelevant. Not a good way to start a working dialogue.

The best way to encourage being included is to be inclusive. That’s obvious. But what should you do when you are the one feeling excluded?

One way to respond is to be defensive and confrontational. But this often perpetuates the problem. Who wants to include a horse’s ass in the next children’s event?

Another way is tit-for-tat: when excluded, exclude back. This sets a boundary and sends a message (“How do you like the taste of your own medicine?”), but it significantly risks escalating the conflict.

A more effective way to respond is to address the issue directly without being confrontational:

I understand that you and the kids made a decision and that they will resent me if I oppose it. I don’t like, however, being left out of important decisions. I would like to set up a time for us to make a list of what kinds of decisions we make together and what kinds we can make separately. I want this to be a one-time event, not a precedent for how we make future decisions.

Yes, I am busy, but that has nothing to do with the importance of my being involved. Let’s look at our calendars and decide when we can meet together with the teacher.

Set a precedent: “You’re important, I will include you. I’m important, I will insist upon being included.”

Listening

2012-02-05T07:03:00.000-06:00

Shortly after a father left the children off at their mother's home, she called him to complain that he left their bags and athletic equipment halfway up the walk rather than at the front door. She said she was annoyed at having to haul everything up the walk and worried that someone might steal it before she brought it all in. Working herself up, she said he was lazy and selfish and had no consideration for her feelings. She went on to describe her friend's excellent working relationship with her ex-husband and wondered why he couldn't be similarly cooperative and polite. She said that the children were beginning to disrespect her just like he did: "What a great role model you are, teaching our children to disregard my feelings." She finished by insisting that he bring the children's things to the front door at the next exchange and then asked:

"So what's the big deal? Why couldn't you bring everything up to the front door? Is that too much to ask?"

The father replied: "I get sad and start to cry when I look in the front door and see my old house. I didn't want the children to see me crying."

"I ain't never learned nothin' talkin'." Lyndon Baines Johnson

Going to the balcony

2012-01-28T10:28:00.000-06:00

Roger Fisher termed the phrase Go to the Balcony to highlight the importance of stepping away from the hard emotions of a difficult negotiation. His phrase encourages negotiators to capture the powers of observation and critical thinking.

But there are other barriers to reasoned analysis – even on the balcony.

One of those barriers is selective attention – a natural tendency to attend closely to information that confirms our pre-existing ideas and to ignore information that doesn’t. I do this every Sunday morning, carefully reading the articles by op-ed journalists with whom I share points-of-view and skipping the pieces by journalists with whom I generally disagree. I feel good when I’m finished – my world view has been confirmed – but I miss an opportunity to expand and challenge my perspectives.

Another barrier, called ‘observer bias,’ is a natural tendency to attribute an internal motivation, such as a person’s character or motivations, to explain another’s untoward behavior. It is considered a bias because it overlooks the strong possibility that external factors rather than the person’s character triggered the behavior. You fail to come to our mediation on time and my first thought is that you are unreliable, disorganized, and discourteous. My conclusion overlooks the fact that you were delayed by rain and a flat tire.

It’s opposite, actor bias, is a tendency to conclude that our own untoward behavior was due to external factors. Actor bias protects us from self-criticism but clouds self-awareness. Just as I am inclined to attribute your lateness to something inherent about you, I am inclined to attribute my lateness to something external: “I’m a reliable person delayed by unusually heavy traffic.” In other words, “We were both late, but I’m okay and you’re not.”

We are most vulnerable to these types of thinking errors during periods of stress—exactly what divorced parents experience when negotiating with the other parent. Going to the balcony helps regain perspective. But even from the view of the balcony, one must consciously maintain a broad perspective rather than a narrow one and consider internal and external factors to explain our own and the other’s behavior. Most importantly, one must tolerate the discomfort of disconfirming information and self-correct whenever our conclusions are likely driven by bias.

Attend broadly, conclude carefully.

Being persuasive: Picture it. Imagine it.

2012-01-22T01:00:00.014-06:00

January 22, 2012

One father suggested a straightforward and relatively minor change to the parenting schedule: He proposed picking the children up from school on Fridays to start his weekends rather than waiting at his house for his ex to deliver them at 6 PM.

When his ex hesitated, saying she was uncertain how she would feel not seeing the children on Friday afternoons before his weekends, the father painted a picture: “Remember all the past Fridays when you had to rush around getting the children from school to swim practice and then home again before bringing them over to me. It’s the same way for me when I’m getting them ready to go to your place. It’s a hassle – for all of us – and not an enjoyable way to spend the afternoon with the kids. It makes for a lousy way to start the weekend. Imagine that you and the children didn’t have to hassle that stuff. I would get the kids right after school, get them where they needed to be in the afternoon, and head home when they were finished. You would be free to do whatever you wanted. You could finish up at work, have dinner out with your friends, meet us at the pool, go for a bike ride, whatever.”

Then he added: “Can you see it? Can you see what I am talking about?”

This father understood that oftentimes “seeing is agreeing.” An idea we can easily picture is an idea we can readily consider. And when we picture an idea, place ourselves in that picture, and then imagine experiencing the benefits – we are more open to accepting it.

His ex could see what he proposed and liked what she saw. She accepted his idea.

Bring your idea alive: Paint a picture.

It's about the interests, Stupid!

2012-01-14T06:56:00.002-06:00

Taking a cue.
In 1992, Bill Clinton and George Bush were fighting for the presidency of the

United States

. Bill Clinton was barely holding on to his place in the opinion polls. George Bush was pushing ahead by drawing on his stature as an experienced world leader.

James Carville, one of Bill Clinton's top advisers, decided that Clinton’s push for the presidency needed focus. Drawing on the research he had conducted he came up with a simple theme for their campaign. At every opportunity, he wrote four words - 'It's the economy, stupid' - on a whiteboard for Bill Clinton to see every time he went out to speak.
So how do I trigger myself to maintain a primary focus on interests when I am helping conflicting parents negotiate? I took my cue from Carville and posted a sign on my desk:

It’s about the interests –It’s always about the interests, Stupid!

The power of precedent: “Precedential power.”

2012-01-07T07:37:00.000-06:00

Running through every negotiation is the power of precedent: “Precedential power.” Indeed, precedent is one of the strongest influences on the course of a negotiation – for better or worse. So what is a precedent? A dictionary defines it as ‘something said or done that serves as an example or rule to justify a subsequent act of the same kind in a similar situation.’ In other words, what we do today often determines what we expect you and I will do tomorrow.

An example. At an early stage of settling their divorce, one couple discussed the wife’s request to draw funds from their joint account to buy a home before they had reached a final settlement. Although she agreed that her husband should also be allowed to draw funds prior to the final settlement, she expected to receive a proportionately larger share of their community assets in the final agreement. Consequently, she believed he should withdraw proportionately less at this interim point than she did. In contrast, the husband felt they should divide their assets equally in the final settlement. He didn’t disagree with how much she wanted to withdraw now, but he insisted on drawing the same for himself.

Why did they reject one another’s proposal? Because each understood the power of precedent. The wife recognized that her husband would regard an even draw now as justification for expecting an even share in the final agreement: “You agreed to an even split before – why not now?” Similarly, the husband understood that an uneven draw would lead her to expect a larger share of their assets at final settlement: “You agreed for me to get a larger distribution before. Why not now?”

Although legitimate concerns about precedent blocked an interim agreement, this couple inadvertently set another precedent: “We will bargain contentiously and stubbornly as we divide our assets.” And that does not bode well for their next negotiating session.

This couple is dealing with the two sets of precedents that influence all negotiations: What we agree upon now sets a precedent for what we will expect to agree upon in the future and how we negotiate now sets a precedent for how we will negotiate in the future.

But you need not be afraid of “precedential power.” Used deliberately, precedents are powerful tools. For example, to develop a good working relationship, set early precedents for being timely, reliable, and courteous. Consider your actions and comments carefully: What precedent is your behavior setting? Are you creating expectations that you will be contentious and stubborn? Or as a thoughtful negotiating partner open to different perspectives?

And as you address the issues at hand, take every opportunity to set precedents for being attentive to underlying interests, open to creative options, and reliable about meeting commitments.

It's a New Year: All sins are forgiven

2012-01-02T08:46:00.001-06:00

I don’t like going to the dentist. I don’t like going one bit. In fact, awhile back I stopped going at all for about ten years – finally returning after a twinge or two warned me not to delay further.

What held me back? One reason, of course, is that I don’t like lying on my back, gagging and spitting while the hygienist and the dentist peer into my drool. Not to mention the noise and vibrations as the dentist bores holes into my teeth.

But the main reason was remorse that I had been so remiss in basic dental hygiene. I expected the dentist to remind me, punish me really with a look and a remark or two about my failure to floss regularly, to brush thoroughly, to come in for regular cleanings and checkups. “For shame!” the dentist implies.

Who wants to feel ashamed?

But after much procrastination, I went back, having steeled myself to endure the dentist’s drill as well as his disdain. But he surprised and cemented our working relationship within moments of coming into the examining room. Noting in the chart that I had not seen a dentist in far too long a time, he chuckled pleasantly and said: “It’s been awhile Mark, but once you walk in the door, all sins are forgiven. Now let’s see what we have here.”

“All sins are forgiven!” With a smile and four words he let me know that the past was the past and that we would judge his work and my compliance with his instructions from that point forward – no looking back, no harping on past neglects. And with that I was committed again to doing my part in collaboration with his advice and treatment.

When mistrust, recrimination and untoward behaviors have replaced a good working relationship, a time comes when it is important to “forgive and forget.” As my dentist understands, a good working relationship often begins by setting the past behind and starting anew.

Options

2011-12-24T17:46:00.000-06:00

December 24, 2011

Options

Understanding one another’s interests is the first step to effective negotiation. Determining not what you want – but why you want it.

The next step is to consider the full range of possibilities that might meet these interests. It’s the stage of identifying and creating options.

Often, this is easy. If we plan to go to the movies one evening, we can check the listings and find one that matches our mood and fits our schedule.

But when options seem limited or unsatisfactory, creating novel solutions can break logjams and lead to better outcomes. It’s a process of inventing options rather than living with the status quo.

Consider this example.

In the late 1800s a man with a house full of guests was wandering on the grounds behind his winter home in Florida when he heard his cook loudly carrying on in the cookhouse. Going to investigate, he found her complaining about having to wash a pile of lunch dishes and cooking utensils in her big sink – and she still had to prepare the dinner meal for the same large group. He sympathized: she had to fill the sink with wash water, scrub down the dishes and pile them to the side, drain and refill the sink with rinse water, and then rinse and stack the dishes again. An awkward, time consuming task - just so she could start over.

His interests? A happier cook preparing what would likely be a better dinner.

What were his options? He might have helped her, of course, or delegated someone else to the task. He could also have sent his guests home, cancelled the dinner, or found a cook who wouldn’t complain. But apparently he didn’t find those options particularly attractive.

Instead, he went to his shop, drew out an idea, and directed his staff to put it together for the cookhouse.

His idea? The two-sink sink. One sink to wash, one sink to rinse, and a ledge for drying. More efficient, less hassle, happier cook. A better option. And now you can find his idea in almost every kitchen in the world.

The inventor? Thomas Edison.

If you don’t like the options available: Invent.

Surviving the holidays

2011-12-23T08:56:00.000-06:00

For more tips and ideas for divorced parents to manage the holidays, check out this excellent article that appeared on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/21/living/holiday-survival-divorced-darents/index.html?hpt=li_c2

Divorce and the Holidays

2011-12-16T06:02:00.000-06:00

Parents anticipating divorce worry that children will associate bad feelings and memories to the holidays if they separate during a holiday school break. These fears are realistic; children’s memories of the actual separation are often vivid and long-lasting. If the children associate hurt and worry with a particular holiday, they may experience an “anniversary reaction” each time that holiday rolls around. Additionally, the children must cope with the immediate separation while apart from the support of school friends, teachers, and school routines.

Yet separating over a holiday period can make sense. School and work demands slow down, giving family members time to move, to spend time with each other to debrief what is happening, and to engage in enjoyable activities that reassure the children that love and fun will still be part of their lives together. The holidays may also enable the children to spend time with their extended families, providing additional support and feelings of belonging during a tough time. And if parents are so conflicted that they cannot forgo arguing and sniping at one another, separating may allow the children to enjoy the holiday without having to cope with their parents’ tensions.

Balancing these factors when making a decision isn’t easy; but consider how one couple managed. Shortly after Thanksgiving, they told the children that they were separating and divorcing. From then until several weeks after school resumed from Winter Break, they ‘bird-nested:” the children remained in the family home and the parents rotated in and out on a three-day/three-day schedule. The father took the children to his family’s home for several days prior to Christmas to spend time with their grandparents and cousins, then returned to the family home where he and the mother celebrated Christmas together with the children. Shortly after Christmas, the mother and children took a short ski trip with her sister and her sister’s children. The parents also arranged for the children to spend time with school friends, setting up outings and sleepovers. There were moments when the children felt sad and angry that their parents weren’t together, but overall the plan worked well. The children’s time with their extended families provided support as well as needed distraction. The bird-nesting arrangement buffered the children from a dramatic change at the outset, allowing them to remain in their home with familiar toys, bedrooms, and routines. Celebrating Christmas together reassured the children the parents would set aside their differences for the children’s sake. And from a practical perspective, the plan gave each parent time to make arrangements for the final separation in January.

The parents’ plan worked well because they did not view separating as an all or none decision. They found a third way: a creative transition plan that accomplished multiple goals. They started the physical separation without exposing the children to abrupt changes, provided the children the support of extended family and friends, maintained a Christmas tradition of celebrating together, and arranged distracting, enjoyable activities. Their lesson to us: A third way is often the best way.

Focus, focus, focus

2011-12-11T06:52:00.000-06:00

You are more likely to experience success negotiating parenting decisions post-divorce if you persistently assert one primary interest relevant to the issue at hand. To do so, you must:

Communicate one, easily understood message.
Be willing to compromise in other areas that are relatively less important.

Consider one father’s experience. For three years, he and his ex-wife used a week-to-week parenting-time schedule. Despite occasional practical problems, the arrangement worked out.

Their daughter did well in school, enjoyed extra-curricular activities, and related warmly and securely to both parents. An active, healthy child, she was happy.

But then the mother remarried and proposed moving to a rural area approximately 400 miles away. She suggested that their daughter go to school there and see her father for long periods in the summer and on holidays. She even offered to let him use their garage apartment if he traveled there to see their daughter. He was understandably upset but quite certain she did not intend to hurt him – he recognized she was simply moving on. He understood her proposal’s merit: the schools there provided small classrooms and were recognized for their excellence. The new community also had novel extra-curricular opportunities. The father, however, was certain the move would make him a peripheral part of his daughter’s life. Rather than staying with him every other week and seeing him at activities and school events during her mother’s weeks, she would see him once a month during the school year and rarely at school and extra-curricular activities.

During their discussions, he acknowledged the merits to her proposal. He praised the schools and the extracurricular activities in the mother’s new community. But he always came back to one primary interest: maintaining their daughter’s high level of involvement with both parents. When the mother repeated the advantages of moving, he replied: “I want both of us to remain central in her life.” He rejected his lawyer’s advice to insist their daughter live with him; he told his ex-wife that reversing her proposal – their daughter living with him and seeing her mother primarily on holidays and summer vacation – was also not a good alternative. He kept asking: “How can we work this so that both of us will remain fully involved?”

In the end, his ex-wife was persuaded – she agreed to live in and commute between both communities. The father, in turn, conceded additional summer parenting time to the mother in order to give their daughter more exposure to the 4H activities in her mother’s new community.

Assessing the outcome of the negotiation, the father attributed its success to his single-minded focus on just one interest: “Keeping both parents fully involved in their daughter’s week-to-week life.”

To maximize success when a difficult issue prevails, focus on one specific core interest that cannot be ignored—but be ready to compromise on less important ones.

Working for the other parent

2011-12-08T09:41:00.000-06:00

You have carefully considered the issues associated with your particular parenting plan. You have thought of some novel ways to meet everyone’s interests. But you aren’t sure how to convince the other parent that your ideas are worth considering.

What is persuasive?

I asked a successful business owner the key to his success negotiating contracts with his customers and vendors. This is what he said:

“Listen, I can sit across the table from anyone and figure out what they need in a deal. Understanding what the other guy needs and finding a way to make sure he gets it. That’s my gift. I work as hard for them as I do for myself. And when I work hard for them, they work hard for me. I always get what I want too.”

This man’s lesson is worth remembering.

One of the most effective ways to persuade is to communicate that you understand what the other parent wants. The communication: “I get it what you need, now let's see how we can do it for you” communicates interest, courtesy, and respect.

Find out what the other parent wants and needs before emphasizing what you want and need. It may take longer and require patience, but you are much more likely to persuade the other parent that your ideas are, indeed, a win for all.

To get others to come into our way of thinking, we must go over to theirs; and it is necessary to follow in order to lead.
William Hazlitt

Look behind positions to find mutual interests.

2011-11-27T08:53:00.000-06:00

At a meeting with divorcing parents and their lawyers, I listened to the couple describe their impasse. The mother wanted to move with their children to another state; the father wanted the children to remain in their present community. They argued back and forth—sometimes directly, sometimes through their lawyers—but never budging from their positions.

I quickly understood why they were stuck. They had defined the problem as a conflict of positions, thus they were trying to resolve it by agreeing upon a position. Dad’s way? Or Mom’s way? But talking about positions often leads to an impasse – particularly when positions cannot be compromised.

Conflicts about positions, however, usually reflect differing underlying interests. In this instance, the mother wanted to put physical distance between them in order to minimize their frequent arguments. The father said bickering was just part of being divorced. He wanted the children to stay so that he could remain a central figure in their lives.

Where the mother was concerned about the effect of their ongoing disagreements upon the children, the father was concerned about the effect of his absence upon the children. The mother wanted emotional peace for herself and the children. The father wanted to remain fully involved in the children’s lives.

Their desires and concerns reflected their respective interests. Their interests lead them to opposing positions:

Mom: I want to move the children. Dad: I want them to stay put.

Having taken opposing positions, they also assumed they had competing interests. The mother angrily asserted: He wants me to stay in order to control me. The father countered: She wants to move in order to make me a less important parent.

But looking behind opposing positions often reveals mutual interests that can be the basis for a more productive discussion and creative problem-solving. Consider the interests they had in common:

Both wanted to support their children’s emotional health and security: One by reducing the conflict and the other by remaining fully involved.
Both wanted to avoid the emotional and financial cost of litigation.
Both wanted to put their energies directly into the children rather than into conflict with each other.

So what could they do? The first step was to change the tenor of the conversation by shifting away from a discussion about positions to a discussion about shared interests. Doing so injected optimism into the discussion and greater mutual understanding.

Their agreement? The mother and children stayed in their present community; the father agreed to attend a week long negotiation seminar at Harvard’s Program on Negotiation.

Look for common interests behind opposing positions to break an impasse.

It's about the interests; it's always about the interests

2011-11-20T07:07:00.000-06:00

All negotiations, just like all sales, are about meeting interests. And the key element of any negotiation is identifying and meeting those interests – yours and the other party’s.

What are interests? Interests are all the things you care about regarding the issues at hand – your concerns, needs, wishes and fears. Interests answer the question as to why you want one thing and not another.

Here is a simple example.

I recently went shopping for a new chain saw. When the salesman asked what I had in mind, I replied: “I want one with the best safety features, a good repair record, and capable of handling logs and trees up to about 18” in diameter. I will only use it four or five times a year – so I don’t need the more expensive professional grade models for daily use.”

Those were my interests: safety, reliability, capability, and cost. Easy enough.

But negotiating a parenting plan or settling a dispute with an ex-spouse evokes many more emotions than making most purchases. And it is when we become highly emotional – particularly when we are anxious or afraid – that we tend to demand concessions to our proposals rather than a thoughtful, reflective discussion about what each of us is interested in accomplishing.

The result? Thinking narrows. Creative solutions are ignored. Working partners become competitive opponents. Someone wins. Someone loses.

Need some examples? You don't need to look further than the impasses between NBA owners and players and between Republicans and Democrats on the Congressional Supercommittee.

Don’t forget:

It’s about the interests. It’s always about the interests.

Developing a parenting plan: It’s child’s play

2011-11-12T20:43:00.000-06:00

The most important negotiation that divorcing parents undertake is developing a parenting plan – the guidelines and expectations regarding schedules, responsibilities, and decision-making. Although parents often are not sure how to develop such a plan, their children have the answer.

Observe how young children build something together with wooden blocks. As a psychologist, I’ve had the opportunity countless times.

Let's consider, first, what they don’t do.

They don’t draw a detailed plan before they start assembling blocks.
They don’t try to build something by working with all of the blocks at the same time.
They don’t always take turns, and
They don’t remain so wedded to their first ideas about what to build that they can’t take it down and start over.

So how do they go about the task?

First, they negotiate: Will it be a zoo, a ranch, a castle? Sometimes it is one objective, sometimes two side-by-side. This is their discussion about interests and goals. Once they have an objective,
They begin to arrange the blocks – but not all at once. They start with two or three, try different arrangements and then start adding some more. Sometimes they divide the effort, each working separately; sometimes they build together, alternately placing blocks. This is their brainstorming: placing blocks, moving them around, removing some and replacing them with others, sometimes knocking it down and starting over. Approaching the task as a “work in progress,” they start by trial-and-error, but
Increasingly organize their efforts around a definite shape. Some blocks become immovable keystones while others are constantly rearranged or thrown aside. This is their agreement stage. Having settled upon a goal and the basic structure to get there, their construction becomes increasingly complex and interesting.
And they keep at it. They never completely finish the project. An improvement here, an adjustment there – endless variations.

Parents can create a parenting plan the same way. After establishing their goals, parents can use trial-and-error to begin tentatively proposing pieces of a plan – but knowing that these pieces can be removed or repositioned, just like the blocks in their children’s play.

As one parent noted, “You have to start somewhere.” But remember what children teach us: Placing the first block starts a process rather than the shape of the final solution. The block can always be moved or removed later on. Similarly, the first pieces of a parenting plan don’t have to determine the outcome. As the discussion proceeds, parents can move things about until a final shape makes sense. And when circumstances or developmental needs change, they can “knock it down and start over.”

Developing a parenting plan doesn’t have to be all work: It can be child’s play.

Satisfying Interests, adding value

2011-11-06T16:37:00.000-06:00

Following his divorce, a father refused to give his ex-wife his phone numbers despite a court order to do so. His ex-wife asked him repeatedly for the numbers and finally filed a contempt motion after she had been unable to reach him in the midst of a medical emergency involving their youngest son.

The father explained his reasoning to me. He couldn’t stand to hear the sound of her voice – in person, over the phone, even on an answering machine. He found her voice so aggravating that “it's like fingernails on a blackboard, it ruins my day if I hear one word from her.” But at the same time, he wanted to be available to his children in an emergency and he recognized that it was important for his ex-wife to be able to get hold of him. He also wanted to avoid a court hearing, knowing that he would not only be held in contempt but would likely have to pay her attorney’s fees as well as his own.

The father settled the matter with a novel suggestion. During a meeting with me and his ex-wife, he noticed that she had a cell phone. He pulled out his own and demonstrated the text page feature. Then, he offered to pay the difference to upgrade her phone to unlimited texting. He reasoned that she would be able to text him and he wouldn’t have to hear her voice. He could text back, avoiding the need to talk to her. And the cost of upgrading her phone service was minimal compared to legal costs associated with defending a contempt motion. His ex-wife immediately accepted the offer. She had what she had originally wanted – his phone number and a way to reach him – and a phone with additional features.

Why was the father’s proposal so effective and readily accepted? Because he invented an alternative that satisfied both his and her interests and added value. She could page him at any time and be assured he would be available in an emergency. He had a way to be available to his children and to his ex-wife without having to speak to her. She gained a better phone and a new appreciation for his creativity.

The most persuasive alternative is one that satisfies interests - and adds unanticipated value.

A Multi-Party Negotiation

2011-11-01T04:40:00.000-05:00

Consider the issue faced by one family. The parents’ eight-year-old son’s teacher complained that he was fighting with another student on the playground about a shovel. It seems he wanted the shovel to dig a hole to

China

; she wanted the shovel to start a garden. Despite the teacher’s interventions, the children had not been able to compromise and share the shovel. Tempers were flaring.

So all the parties met together – a multiparty negotiation. It was easy to identify everyone’s interests. The teacher wanted peace and safety on the playground; she wanted the shovel used as a tool, not a weapon. One student wanted to dig a magnificent hole, the other wanted to start an equally magnificent garden. The parents had reached the uncomfortable realization that their son’s difficulties on the playground reflected their own difficulty negotiating; their interest was for their son to learn what they were still working on – finding creative solutions rather than pursuing positional arguments.

Having defined the problem and their respective interests, the group brainstormed various options. One parent suggested that the teacher use time out or loss of “shovel privileges” if one or both children couldn’t share. Another parent suggested removing the shovel entirely from the playground. No shovel, no conflicts. The children didn’t like these options – there was too much risk that their interests in digging would go unsatisfied. One of the children suggested buying more shovels for the playground – but the teacher worried that doing so would simply reward bad behavior and not teach the children to cooperate and share.

And so that is where it sat. Their evaluation of the options revealed that one or two options were “good enough” – but only just. And these options just didn’t leave everyone better off. They needed something more. Something creative. And this is when the brainstorm occurred.

Everyone agreed that the children needed more shovels on the playground – but everyone also agreed that simply buying more shovels would not help the children learn a valuable lesson in cooperating. And then one of the children made the winning suggestion: “why not sell lemonade and cookies at the car pool line and use the money we make to buy more shovels? The students can make the cookies in the cafeteria and sell it ourselves.”

And that was the solution. More cooperation. More shovels. Peace on the playground. A lesson learned.

The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.

Oswald Spengler

Alienated children: Strengthening their resilience

2011-10-23T06:44:00.000-05:00

Not all children exposed to their parents’ high conflict divorces feel disillusioned or alienated. I talked with one 6^th grade boy whose parents continually bashed one another. Yet he had a good relationship with both and was unaffected by their negativity. When I asked how he managed, he said: “Oh, it’s no big deal. My parents are just terrible when they’re around each other or talk on the phone but on their own they’re great. Anyway, it’s not about me, it’s all about them, they’re angry their marriage didn’t work.” In contrast, another 6^th grade boy was so affected by his mother’s casual criticism of the father’s new dog that he refused parenting-time with his father. He commented: “It’s like my father loves that dog more than me and more than my mother, like he wanted a dog more than a family.”

The first boy recognized that his parents’ arguments and badmouthing did not reflect upon him: “It’s not about me, it’s all about them.” By not personalizing their difficulties, he did not feel hurt or pressured to take sides. The second boy, however, took his mother’s comments to heart; he perceived that his father’s decision to get a dog reflected directly on him: “I guess I’m not as much fun.” He over-personalized his mother’s comment, felt terribly hurt and angry, and rejected his father as he perceived his father had rejected him.

The first boy had two skills that enabled him to stay above the fray: he knew how to “go to the balcony” to remain apart from rather than caught up in his parents’ conflicts and he understood the importance of not over-personalizing their criticisms. The second boy was not as resilient. He was sad, angry, and alienated. He over-personalized the mother’s comments and could not view his father’s decision to get a dog or his mother’s criticisms from an outside perspective. It hadn’t occurred to him, for example, that his mother might be worried that he would so like the dog that he would want to spend more time at his father’s home or that his father might have acquired the dog to give his son something positive to offset the hurt of the divorce.

One way to help children like him is to provide information about what motivates Favored Parents to turn children against the other parent. Such information, when presented without judgment by a neutral source, helps children do what the first boy in our examples had down pat: “go to the balcony.” Armed with this new information, children can begin separating from the Favored Parent’s views and are less at risk to over-personalize what they hear.

If you are interested in learning more about how to present such information , view Chapter Five of WelcomeBack, Pluto.

What's in a name?

2011-10-17T06:09:00.000-05:00

An alienated teenage girl calls her father by his first name and her stepfather as “Dad.” She explains that her stepfather is “my real dad” and her birth father is a “pretender.” Her choice of names has not gone unnoticed. Her birth father frowns, her stepfather smiles, and the Judge scowls.

Parents’ first gift to their children is a name: Paul, Lilly, Emily, Sam, Sarah. And their given name is not the only name children receive. They are also known as son, daughter, cousin, grandchild, brother, sister. Names that describe roles, relatedness, belonging. But just as parents give a name, parents receive a name: Dad, Mom, Pops, Ma. For most parents, it is the most important name they will ever receive. It is a source of pride, a commitment, an identity and a responsibility to carry the rest of their lives.

This girl’s father wondered if she understood how hurtful it was to hear her use his first name. He wasn’t amused when I commented that he was lucky, she could call him worse. Did his daughter understand? In part, yes; she intended to hurt him, her tone was contempt. But like other alienated children, she didn’t understand the deeper implications of what she was saying.

Although many descriptions in the literature note alienated children’s use of the rejected parent’s first name, few emphasize it, despite that rejected parents often find it deeply troubling, sometimes the most troubling aspect of their children’s rejecting behavior. For this reason, we included a chapter in Welcome Back, Pluto that illustrates how names can be used to connect – or disconnect. Showing it to alienated children may not lead them to immediately change their behavior. But it may raise their empathic awareness of how hurtful their words have been and lead them to ask: "Do I want to be that way?"

How do favored parents contribute to parent-child alienation?

2011-10-09T09:50:00.000-05:00

An 11-year-old boy complained that his mother wasn’t coming to his soccer games. The father replied that maybe his mother was more interested in pursuing her career and making money than spending time with him. The result? The boy sulked and isolated himself the next time he went to his mother’s home, angry and hurt at thinking his mother didn’t care about him. The reason she worked such long hours, however, was to have enough to pay her share of his special school tuition and the medical bills associated with his chronic illness. The father had it partially right; the mother made a deliberate decision to miss the games in order to put in more work hours. But by casting her motivations negatively, the father effectively put doubt in his son’s mind about his mother’s interest in him. On other occasions, this father denied the mother her parenting-time, saying their son was ill and must stay home. This mother was perfectly capable of caring for her son when he was ill; she had done so capably many times in the past. But now her son began to doubt her basic caretaking skills. This father was making the two most common mistakes that favored parents make: discouraging his son from having positive feelings and thoughts about his mother and blocking the mother’s physical access to their son.

But helping alienated children understand how a favored parent has influenced them to have negative feelings and thoughts about the rejected parent is a tough task. What they see is a good parent and a bad parent. What they don’t see is which of the favored parent’s behaviors influenced them to have such a polarized outlook. When therapists or rejected parents try to point out these behaviors, alienated children often respond defensively, denying their favored parent has done anything wrong (psychologists call this reactive devaluation: automatically devaluing any thought or idea offered by a mistrusted source).

An alternative way to help alienated children see a different perspective is to present Chapter Three of Welcome Back, Pluto. It explains in neutral, noncritical terms specifically how parents can influence children to have negative feelings and thoughts about the other parent. Pluto doesn’t say “your parent is doing these things,” it says: “this is what some parents do, decide for yourself if this might be happening in your family.” Presented with respect for their ability to think critically and independently, children are more receptive to Pluto’s message—rather than automatically rejecting the information.

After seeing Welcome Back, Pluto, the light bulb went on for the boy in the example above. Now he could see exactly which of his father’s actions were affecting him. So he did what Pluto suggested; he asked his father to stop.

To learn more about Welcome Back, Pluto, go to: markrotis.com

Alienated Children: Knowing how they feel

2011-10-02T09:00:00.000-05:00

When a marriage ends, we often expect to see a clash of adults asserting blame and disputing terms of a settlement. It turns out, however, we often see a clash of generations, the children aligning with one parent and rejecting the other long after the divorce is complete. Although these children are referred to as alienated, a more descriptive term for their internal experience may be disillusioned. Disillusioned by adults behaving badly, disillusioned by promises made but broken, disillusioned by dreams shattered and security withdrawn.

In some instances the disillusionment is based on their parents’ behavior, such as when a parent has a drinking problem or had an affair or withdrew from involvement or when parents continually argue in front of the children. In these instances, we can easily understand the children’s disillusionment: their parents have not lived up to what their children expected or needed them to be; it’s a type of grief that can linger a lifetime.

In other instances, the children’s disillusionment is driven in part or largely by others’ negative influences about the rejected parent more so than the rejected parent’s behavior. Rather than encouraging these children to hold a realistically positive view of that parent, others encourage them to selectively and exclusively attend to the rejected parent’s real and perceived faults. But to accept this new definition of a previously loved parent produces disturbing dissonance: “How can I feel good about the parts of myself that I have in common with this parent that I hate?” Tragically, many resolve this internal distress by rejecting core aspects of themselves as well as the parent they profess to hate. One young boy said to me: “I’m no longer a whole kid. I left the other part of me at Mom’s house.” He was as alienated from himself as he was from his mother.

But this boy was unusual; many children and teens don’t have the words or self-understanding to express what is happening to them in such clear, concise terms. Disillusionment is just one aspect of alienated children’s experiences and perceptions. We address more about how alienated children feel and behave in Chapter Two of Welcome Back, Pluto. It provides alienated children and family members the necessary understanding and words to begin repairing relationships.

Parent-child Alienation: Terminology

2011-09-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

When I first considered cases of parent-child alienation, I got hung up on vocabulary. What kind of problem were we talking about? Referring to every child in these situations as alienated obscured important differences -- but describing children as mildly, moderately, or severely alienated didn’t capture the nuances either. Should we refer to the parent who the children preferred as the alienating parent? The alienator? Those terms implied the parent was doing something wrong—but how accurate would that be if influences other than the preferred parent were pushing the children away from the parent they were rejecting? And what about cases where a parent’s behavior was so egregious that it was entirely reasonable for children to reject them? What labels would differentiate those situations from ones where the children’s rejection of a parent weren’t justified by that parent’s behavior? Articles about the problem of parent-child alienation used different terms and didn’t provide clear direction. Similarly, parents and children affected by the problem had the same difficulty; they stumbled when trying to describe what was going on, they didn’t have a standard vocabulary. It appeared that the field needed an accepted nosology: a system to classify or categorize different dimensions of the problem.

The result of my discussions with Dr. Rick Warshak about this need was a new terminology, first introduced to the professional community in his article in the January 2010 edition of Family Court Review, providing an efficient, common-sense set of labels and terms that accurately captured the problem. Briefly, we arrived upon three terms to categorize the severity and nature of the problem: Disillusioned, Alienated and Estranged; a term for each parent: the Favored Parent and the Rejected Parent; and two terms to describe the origin of the problem: Unrealistic Parent-child Alienation, and Realistic Parent-child Alienation. We also added another term, Blowback, to describe what happens when children reject a parent who is trying to alienate them from the other parent.

In addition to introducing this terminology to the professional community for its consideration, we believed it would be important to introduce it to parents and children affected by the problem of alienation. So important, in fact, that Chapter One of our educational video, Welcome Back, Pluto, describes and illustrates each term. We have been gratified by how family members’ received it. Parents feel reassured: “Now we have a name for this problem, I know how to describe it, I don’t feel so crazy anymore.” Children have been particularly responsive to the three categories of alienation. One teen commented after seeing Chapter One: “I guess I was estranged for awhile, alienated a whole lot, but today I think I’m more disillusioned than anything else.” Like their parents, the children feel reassured; they have words to describe what they’ve been feeling and how they’ve been acting.

Learning about anything new means first learning the relevant language. Parents, children, professionals and everyone else affected by the problems of parent-child alienation will find that language in Welcome Back, Pluto.

The Sixth Virtue: Compromise

2011-09-17T18:37:00.000-05:00

In any complicated negotiation where the parties feel strongly about the interests at stake, periodic impasses are inevitable. Two persuasive but seemingly opposing proposals can create an impasse – a stalemate. Knowing how to overcome impasses is the effective negotiators most important talent. Consider the following example.

The Constitutional Congress of 1787 was at an impasse that threatened the birth of the United States: Should each state have a number of Congressional representatives proportional to its population or should each state have the same number of votes? Some argued: How could a small state ever have a say in making and passing laws if Congress was proportionally represented? The large states would always win. Others argued: How could the larger states protect their larger contributions of monies and resources if each state had the same number of votes? The tyranny of a few small states could draw federal resources out of proportion to their contribution.

And there the issue lay, threatening to sink the launching of a new nation.

Who broke the impasse?

The idealistic and brilliant Jefferson? Nope.

The moral and exceptionally well read John Adams? No again.

It took a realist, someone with a practical turn of mind and the utmost respect for different points of view: Benjamin Franklin. Drawing upon his long experience with Philadelphia craftsmen, Franklin reminded the disputants that “when a broad table is to be made, and the edges of planks do not fit, the artist takes a little from both and makes a good joint. In like manner here, both sides must part with some of their demands.” He then proposed: Why not two bodies of representatives, one with proportional representation and one with equal representation?

The resulting discussion, of course, constructed the Senate and the House of Representatives, institutionalizing the creative tensions between state and federal interests without forcing either side to concede wholly to the other or to give up basic principles. A solution was found, not by revolutionaries propounding unwavering political principles but by a man with equally strong beliefs in humility, tolerance, and respect for differing points of view.

Oftentimes, to reach acceptable solutions:

“Both sides must part with some of their demands.” Benjamin Franklin

Making Concessions II

2011-09-11T08:00:00.000-05:00

In the last post, I described two of Deepak Malhotra’s tips about how to make concessions.

His third tip is useful in situations where trust is low or when you don’t think the person with whom you are negotiating has a sincere interest in meeting you half-way. In these instances, you can make contingent concessions.

A concession is contingent when you say that you can only make the concession if the other one agrees to concede something specific in return.

For example, if a parent is negotiating a parenting-time schedule with the other parent, he or she might say: “I can agree to the summer schedule you’ve suggested, even though it means I have less time with the kids, but only if you allow me to have the kids every Spring Break.”

Contingent concessions are safe—you give up nothing if your request isn’t met. But beware, it’s important to use contingent concessions carefully. If you tie a contingency to every concession you offer, you’re likely to be seen as self-serving and demanding.

Malhotra’s final tip is to offer concessions one at a time rather than all at once.

The reason? Many people enter a negotiation expecting to go back and forth several times before reaching an agreement. If you offer everything all at once, your spouse may expect that you have more to offer and insist on bargaining even when you have nothing more to give.

One way to make multiple concessions is to use installments. Let’s say you don’t agree on what portion of the family debts each of you will assume after the divorce. You’re willing to take on an additional $10,000 above your first offer. You will be better off making two or three smaller concessions, say $5,000 followed by one for $3,000 and then another for $2,000 than if you make one $10,000 concession.

Making successive concessions has several advantages. First, it signals that you are willing to be flexible and to consider the other’s concerns. Second, you may find that you can settle the matter before you have to make as large a total concession as you had originally thought. You might have a deal, for example, after the first concession of $5,000, saving you the other $5,000 you were prepared to give over. Third, each successive concession offers you another opportunity to label your concession and to identify additional things you need in return.

These tips are intended to help you make concessions confidently – knowing that concessions offered will not be concessions ignored or exploited. They will help you avoid concession debt.

But successful negotiators know that an equally important skill is recognizing and reciprocating the concessions offered to you. If your spouse appears to be making a concession without labeling it or asking for anything in return, don’t be afraid to acknowledge it and ask about what they have in mind. It’s a way to build good will and trust—the essential ingredients to a good working relationship.

Making Concessions

2011-09-04T08:00:00.000-05:00

Deciding whether or how to concede a particular issue is a common dilemma faced by people negotiating a divorce or parenting agreement. Maybe your spouse wants the car that you had in mind for yourself in the final settlement. Or maybe you and the other parent are far apart on how much parenting-time you should have with the kids. Should you give in? Ask for something in return? Or dig in your heels? Everyone knows that give and take is necessary in negotiation; after all, you can’t expect to receive concessions if you aren’t willing to make concessions.

Many negotiations go awry, however, when concessions offered become concessions unrewarded. When this happens, discontent builds and cooperation lessens. One term for this is concession debt – the resentment negotiators feel when they’ve made multiple concessions but the other side has not offered any in return.

So what can you do to avoid concession debt? Deepak Malhotra from Harvard University has identified four ways to make effective concessions. I will describe two here and two more in the next post.

His first and most important tip is that when you make a concession: label it. Don’t assume the other party realizes you’ve made a concession. They may not recognize your offer as a concession or they may think you’re giving up something that isn’t important to you. And if what you’re offering is not important to them, they won’t value the concession as highly as you do. It’s important therefore that you insure the other party gets it: “I’m making a concession here.”

There are two points to emphasize when you label a concession. First, let your spouse know the cost you're paying to make the concession. For example, if you are conceding the car they want, you might explain how difficult it will be for you financially to buy a car of comparable reliability and size. Second, emphasize how your spouse benefits from the concession. “You’re getting reliable, safe transportation without the hassle of buying a new car.”

Why is it important to label concessions? Because all of us feel a need to reciprocate concessions that are made to us and we expect others to reciprocate the concessions we’ve made to them. By labeling the concession, you put the other party on notice: “I’ve made a concession, reciprocation is expected.”

Malhotra’s second tip, therefore, is: define specifically what you expect in return. Remember, your spouse can’t read your mind. If there is something you want, say so. This conveys clearly what you would like them to do to reciprocate and doesn’t allow them to avoid the obligation to do so. In the above instance, for example, you might say: “This wasn’t easy for me, letting you have the car. But now I expect that you are in a better place to make some changes in how we divide the cash accounts. An extra 5% on my side would help me set up my new home.”

I’ll pass along two more of Malhotra's tips in the next post.

Challenging beliefs - Identifying options

2011-08-28T08:52:00.000-05:00

Cognitive psychology demonstrates that our beliefs about events, rather than the events themselves, trigger specific feelings and responses. Spending a day with the ex-spouse at the children’s soccer tournament may activate excitement for one parent (“The kids will love seeing us cheering them on”), dread for another (“Great, another chance to argue”) or indifference for a third (“Been there, done that”).

Cognitive psychology has focused particular attention on how beliefs shape our responses to adversity. Depending upon how we perceive and interpret such events, we feel different emotions, such as hopeful (“I know how to fix this”), guilty (“It’s all my fault”), or anger (“This shouldn’t have happened to me”). A person’s beliefs, therefore, play a major part in how well she or he copes.

Martin Seligman, a renowned psychologist, invented an easy way to remember this sequence:

Adversity (a challenging event or circumstance)

Belief (how the event is perceived and interpreted)

Consequence (the feelings and behaviors that flow from the beliefs)

This simple A-B-C tool can be immensely helpful to divorced parents who want to understand why they become so undone by the other parent’s behavior. It’s an easy tool to use: Identify the triggering event, note the consequent feelings, and then carefully analyze the beliefs that shaped a particular response.

Our beliefs generally follow one of two paths. If we tend to look back, our beliefs likely focus on: “Why did this happen?” If we tend to look forward, we wonder: “What will happen next?” It’s easy to see, then, how different feelings flow from different ways of viewing the problem. If my answer to the first question is: “My ex is entirely to blame for this mess,” I’m likely to feel angry and resentful. But if my answer is: “Wow, I really screwed up here,” I am more likely to feel regret and guilt. Similarly, if my answer to the second question is: “Things can only get worse,” I will probably feel anxious and helpless. But if my thought is: “I’ve learned something important to use going forward,” I’m more likely to feel optimistic and hopeful.

Cognitive psychologists emphasize, however, that identifying our beliefs is just the first step. Knowing that I blame myself for the current mess with my ex doesn’t change how I feel or change the situation. It’s still a mess. The next step is to challenge my beliefs, particularly if I exclusively blame either myself or my ex, view the problem as so entrenched that it will never change, or have a pessimistic outlook. Such thinking patterns are often driven by heated emotions and bias rather than a cool, objective appraisal of the problem. If I’m always looking back and becoming angry, for example, it may help to simply tell myself to look forward: “I can’t change the past, so forget it. Let’s figure out what I can do going forward.” And by accepting a new way of seeing the problem, I can consider new ways of responding.

Want to know more?

Check out: http://blog.ted.com/2008/07/21/why_is_psycholo/ or www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/

Should divorced parents negotiate every issue?

2011-08-21T07:23:00.000-05:00

Should divorced parents negotiate every issue? Or are there other ways to resolve conflicts?

Consider one father’s dilemma. His ex-wife said she intended to take the children for a two-week trip during his designated summer possession time. She offered to trade two weeks of her time – but said she would not give up the trip. The father was reluctant to accommodate her demand; he did not want to set a precedent whereby she felt she could ignore their decree’s provisions.

I told him he had four possible ways to respond. First, he could argue that the time was his to control and not hers to take, perhaps even in front of a judge if he felt strong enough. Alternatively, he could try to problem-solve with her to find a satisfactory solution. A third strategy would be to yield and rearrange his schedule to meet her demand. Or, he could avoid the issue entirely by not responding.

Each strategy offered this father different advantages and tradeoffs.

For example, if he avoided the issue, for the moment, he left open the possibility of initiating future discussion once tempers cooled. But there was a significant risk that his ex would interpret this as silent assent with her position. And, of course, the problem might be more difficult to solve the closer they get to the weeks in question.

His initial impulse was to take a contentious approach. He considered making extreme demands – insisting upon three weeks in return for the two she wanted. He also considered filing a motion with the court to enforce their decree. But this risked undermining his working relationship with his ex, making it more difficult to negotiate future issues. I also cautioned him that once he started contending, he might not be able to compromise for fear of appearing weak.

He recognized that yielding to her demand would settle things for the moment but might encourage her to expect him to agree to similar unilateral demands in the future. And once he yielded, he couldn’t easily reopen the issue for further discussion.

The father eventually chose a problem solving strategy. He reframed the issue as a weakness in their divorce decree and said he would accommodate her request if she agreed to a new procedure to handle future summers. This approach also left open the possibility of using any of the other three strategies if his assessment of the situation changed or if the problem didn’t resolve satisfactorily.

All four strategies have advantages and drawbacks. Avoiding a problem when everyone needs an opportunity to cool off may be a good short-term approach. Yielding on relatively insignificant issues often makes sense, saving effort and resources for more important issues. But when critical interests are at stake and the other party is opposed to problem solving, forceful strategies may be necessary to protect one’s interests. In the event of a particularly complex problem, a resolution may be achieved with skillful use of all four: avoiding some issues, yielding on others, problem-solving creative solutions to one set of issues, while contending another.

Overconfidence Bias

2011-08-14T07:37:00.000-05:00

Have you wondered why so many talented rock bands break up? Or why gifted athletic teams oftentimes implode? Or, for that matter, why so many marriages end badly and well-meaning divorced parents stop talking to one another?

Social psychologists have one possible explanation, the overconfidence bias. The overconfidence bias is a human tendency to overestimate our individual contribution to a group’s success—and thereby underestimate the contribution of the others. Ask each person in a work group to privately estimate to what extent the group’s success was due to their individual efforts, add up their estimates, and the total almost always surpasses 100 percent. Conversely, group members often underestimate their contribution to a group’s failure to reach specific goals, perceiving others as carrying that burden. As a custody evaluator, I saw this dynamic repeatedly—adding up the parents’ claims regarding their respective parenting contributions often yielded a result closer to 200% than 100%. This pattern stems largely from people being more aware of their own contributions, easily brought to mind, as well as tendency not to view the other members of a task group, or the other parent, as a distinct, contributing member. Said another way, my contributions appear easily in the foreground of memory, whereas others’ contributions are in the background.

This bias can have serious effects on co-parent functioning and divorce negotiations. For example, when the recognition a parent receives does not match their private estimation of their contributions, resentment can build. Additionally, if a parent asserts an estimate of their contributions, the other parent may view those estimates as self-serving and inflated and feel unappreciated. Now imagine what happens when both parents claim disproportionate credit. Both parents are likely to feel unappreciated for their contributions and resentful of the other claiming too large a share. Such resentments breed jealousy, discontent, and mutual mistrust. Perhaps this is one reason why the superstar stuffed Miami Heat wilted when it played the Dallas Mavericks, a team noted for its team-first philosophy, in the 2011 NBA finals.

Fortunately, it is relatively easy to unpack the overconfidence bias: just ask each parent to list the others’ contributions rather than their own. Doing so brings the background into focus and sharpens the eye to what the other has contributed. But not always. I have found that conflicted divorced parents often have difficulty recognizing any of the other parent’s contributions and underweight the ones they do identify.

“Yeah, she picks them up everyday from school, even on my days, but what’s the big deal? A bus driver could do that. I take care of the morning stuff, which is what is really important.” or “He makes a lot of noise about getting the children to school. So what? I taught those kids to get up and out the door in 30 minutes; he doesn’t have to do anything. And he’s still late half the time anyway.”

The reader will recognize that these parents’ ability to undo the contribution bias is itself undone by another bias—the confirmation bias: selectively attending to information that confirms their preexisting negative pictures of one another. And to what end? Discontent, resentment, and children who grow up in an atmosphere of bias and negativity.

So what can divorced parents do to avoid the overconfidence bias trap? It’s not that difficult. The key is applying knowledge of the bias to make honest self-assessments and to keep a realistic perspective by noting what the other parent has done. In a word: humbleness.

Play it, Sam

2011-08-07T07:35:00.000-05:00

After dinner one night, I helped our host, Bob, clean the dishes. When his teenage son wandered through, Bob asked him to gather up the trash from the party and take it out to the garbage can. His son’s response? “In your dreams, Pops.”

Not the best remark to make to one’s father in front of his guests. I was prepared to ignore the situation and help Bob overcome his embarrassment by engaging in mindless small talk, but what happened next left an impression.

Bob turned to his son and said calmly but firmly: “I tell you what, let’s play that scene again.” To my surprise, his son stopped in his tracks, seemed to consider his options, and then went out the door he had entered through. He returned a moment later, just as he had before, slouching his way through the kitchen. In the same tone as he had used the first time, Bob politely repeated his request for his son to collect and empty the trash. This time his son said simply: “Sure, no problem” and began the task. Bob didn’t say anything further.

After his son left, I asked Bob what that was all about. He laughed and reminded me that he was a children’s theater director. He said he had an understanding with his children that if a “family scene” such as the one I had witnessed didn’t go well the first time, he would give them a chance to replay the scene. If they played it correctly, the issue was done and nothing further was said. If they chose not to replay the scene appropriately: “Well then they know we have a problem and there will be consequences.”

But “replaying the scene” is actually a common technique to repair a bad moment. For example, one often heard way to do so is to say: “We both seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot. Let’s start from the beginning.” If it is clear that you didn’t understand what the other was saying or if your comments meet quick resistance, you might say: “it’s clear that I don’t understand something important about your point of view, please try again and let’s see if I can get it the next time through.” When you realize you’ve crossed the line of propriety, you can try: “Sorry, I got off on the wrong foot. Will you give me a chance to try again?”

You have to be subtler when the other parent has become overly reactive or has made unhelpful comments. Rather than doing what you might want to do, reacting in kind, you have to find a way to help them and you get back on track without adding insult. One tactful way is to simply ask: “I can tell from your tone that this is not the best time for you, when might we pick up this conversation later?”

Take a cue from Bob,

“Play the scene again” to repair breaks in the working relationship.

The Flexible Edge

2011-07-31T07:30:00.000-05:00

I have a coffee cup in my office with the inscription: Life is one damn thing after the other. Steve, a divorced father of three, always chose this cup for his coffee before we sat down to talk about his frustrating relationships with his ex-wife and her new husband. For several sessions he just laughed sardonically about the inscription but didn’t say anything further. After describing yet another emotional scene with his ex-wife, he remarked:

“I think this cup has it wrong, maybe for most people life is one damn thing after another. But for me and my ex, life is the same damn thing over and over again.”

Steve had it exactly right. For years he had been viewing her from the same negative perspective, reacting to her in the same reflexive way, and getting the same frustrating results. He was beginning to understand that before his ex-wife would accommodate with him, he might have to accommodate with her.

The next week, Steve brought me a specially inscribed cup to add to our collection:

Do what you’ve always done,

get what you’ve always gotten.

Defending a Position

2011-07-23T12:00:00.000-05:00

may leave you wishing you hadn’t

Taking a position in a negotiation is like claiming a territory – once one has been staked out, there seems to be an inborn need to defend it, even when better alternatives are available.

Tell this to our dog. He has staked out the back yard as his territory and he will not, under any circumstances, share it with local cats, squirrels, birds or the occasional opossum. No negotiating, no compromising. Should one intrude, a bark, a chase, the offender retreats and he returns confidently to his post.

Yesterday morning, however, he learned an unpleasant lesson about being on the losing side of a territorial dispute. Investigating a suspicious sound in some bushes, he took exception to the intruder rooting for grubs and he claimed his own with a bark and a rush. The intruder, however, was equally adamant that this was his to root in and he was even less willing to negotiate than our dog. To prove his point, he turned his back and let loose.

Our dog had been skunked. He beat a retreat, looking terribly chagrined and smelling worse. The skunk? Well, he went calmly about, rooting and snuffling for whatever morsels he could find.

Could they have shared the space? Of course. The skunk’s interest is in the grubs under the bushes, our dog’s interest is in the open spaces to lie in the sun and to chase a ball. They could easily have accommodated one another, a perfectly reasonable melding of interests.

But tell that to our dog.

Be careful when you negotiate from a hard and fast position, you might win but then again, you might get skunked.

Absorbing states

2011-07-15T21:42:00.000-05:00

If you find yourself bogged down in conflict with your children’s other parent, you may be in what’s called an “absorbing state” (http://www.gottman.com/49862/704892/DVD-Workshop-Books--Lectures/The-Science-of-Trust.html). Absorbing states have the consistency of the gummy wet black clay that frustrates North Texas farmers and gardeners. They pull one in and don’t let go. Absorbing states are similar muddy, sticky bogs of criticism, contempt, and recrimination that are easy for conflicted parents to step into but hard to step out of. And the harder parents fight to get out, the more they dig in.

Divorced parents are at risk to enter an absorbing state when they contend rather than cooperate and argue rather than listen. Such working relationships are burdened by so much mistrust and negativity that the smallest disagreements draw these parents into escalating accusations and threats. In contrast, divorced parents who have built prevailing good will in their working relationship overlook minor problems, “forgive and forget,” and under-react rather than over-react when irritated. When the positives outweigh the negatives, the negatives just don’t seem all that important.

But if things go bad, why can’t feuding parents exit such a mess? Independently, they agree that the conflict serves no practical purpose and is a source of frustration and fatigue. All say they want peace. The problem here is repair. Like the farmer who is too embarrassed to ask anyone to pull his tractor out of a muddy field, feuding parents caught up in absorbing states are reluctant to apologize or back down, worried that doing so would reveal weakness or necessitate losing face. Their rationales for continuing the conflicted exchanges (“I won’t be bullied without fighting back.” “It’s a matter of principle.” “I didn’t leave this marriage to let myself be treated like this.”) protect their pride - but often at considerable cost.

So what can parents do when bogged down in an absorbing state of negativity and recrimination?

The most effective strategy is to neutralize contentious exchanges right at the start by not reacting in kind when provoked, focusing on the problem at hand rather than straying onto unrelated irritations, and constructing communications carefully to weed out coercion, threats, and criticisms. As Roger Fisher says: “Be hard on the problem, soft on the person.”

But if parents are already stuck in the muck, accepting different points of view rather than trying to change them and taking a break to calm tensions can often help parents extricate themselves. In many cases, “manning up” and apologizing is the most effective way to get a stuck negotiation back on track: “We argued yesterday. I could have handled the conversation much better. Let’s try again without doing it all over again. What do you think today about....?”

Negotiating with a Jerk

2011-07-11T06:26:00.000-05:00

Divorced parents sometimes ask me: Can I really negotiate with a jerk? Should I even try?

Good questions. Particularly when the jerk is violent, has substance abuse problems, or lies, cheats, threatens, or otherwise behaves badly.

The answers are a qualified yes. You should try. And there are ways to improve your chances of success. But when negotiating with a jerk, it is exceptionally important to plan, plan, and plan again before initiating any serious negotiations. In fact, when negotiating with a jerk, planning how you will negotiate is far more important than what you negotiate.

Plan a physical venue that is safe for you and the other parent.

Plan whether others should be present or represent you in your place.

Plan the agenda carefully before agreeing to start discussion. Insist upon an agreement about the agenda before starting to negotiate.

Plan how you will prevent unexpected issues brought up by the other parent to interfere with solving the problem at hand.

Plan a communication strategy that is safe, efficient, respectful and most likely to reinforce an effective dialogue. In lieu of direct conversation, consider alternatives: Email? Fax? Mail? Attorney-to-attorney communication? Phone calls?

Plan an “exit strategy.” Know how you will break off discussion if it is going badly or if you just feel too rattled to continue.

Plan a negotiation process. Separate proposals with the aim of finding a compromise? Interest based brainstorming? Third party directed dialogue?

Plan on starting small. Log roll: Build momentum towards difficult issues by negotiating small ones that are likely to yield more readily to compromises or solutions.

Anticipate becoming anxious and frustrated – Plan how you will keep these “hot” emotions cooled off.

Most important of all, know your Plan B. What will you do if the problem at hand isn't resolved. If your Plan B is weak, improve it. If it is strong, let the other parent know that you have a good walk-away alternative.

See everything; overlook a great deal; correct a little.

Pope John XXIII

Pace

2011-07-03T08:21:00.000-05:00

A divorcing father and mother came today to work on their parenting plan. The father hurried in a bit late, explaining “Boy was that frustrating, I hit every traffic light between home and here.”

We’ve all been there: “hurry up and wait, hurry up and wait.”

His wife, in contrast, arrived early. When he rushed in, she was sitting quietly in the waiting room, reviewing her notes and filing a broken nail.

She was in no hurry: “we’ll get there when he gets here.”

So how did the session go? Not so well. The mother carried over her deliberate pace to the discussion; the father conveyed urgency and impatience when his concerns were not addressed immediately and rapidly. The more the father conveyed frustration with the mother mulling things over, the more the mother resisted, not wanting to make a decision when feeling hurried.

She was his red light. He was her tail-gaiter honking his bleeping horn.

The problem was one of contrasting pace: the mother and father were operating at different speeds. One wanted to act, the other to consider. One wanted to work fast, the other to go slow.

When pace is out of sync, everyone feels discontent. The strain is particularly difficult for the one being pressured to speed up. And when one participant feels rushed by the other, mutual frustration builds, satisfaction with the outcome goes down, and the working relationship comes undone.

But as you would expect, participants’ satisfaction, even when feeling time pressure, remains high when they match their pace to one another.

So if you are like the father I saw this morning, it is important to remember that hurried individuals feel much more strain than those, like you, who feel slowed down. So try to check your impatience. Pushing your slower negotiating partner is likely to yield resistance rather than cooperation. And that is not in your interest.

And if you tend to go slow and frustrate those pressing from behind, remember that asking them to “be patient” likely increases impatience. Consider giving yourself a little oomph to move ahead a bit quicker. The effort will be appreciated. And that is in your interest.

Co-Parenting is a marathon: Establish a pace.

Attack the Problem -- Not the Person

2011-06-26T11:14:00.000-05:00

In the heat of the moment, parents often forget to keep the “problem separate from the person.” They personalize the issues rather than define them in neutral terms. The result? A resolvable practical problem becomes a highly charged intractable problem. Instead of talking options to attack the problem, they talk smack to attack each other.

One couple argued constantly about their eight-year-old son’s asthma medication. The mother complained that the father was a neglectful parent for not having an inhaler at his home. The father complained that the mother was a control freak for not being willing to pass one along when his son came to his home. The mother complained that the father was a tightwad for not sending back the last inhaler she sent with their son – she had to buy another, at her expense. The father complained that the mother was a total scatterbrain who never forwarded the prescription that would allow him to buy an inhaler through their insurance plan.

When the mother’s anxiety for their son’s health finally peaked, she refused to allow him to go for one of the father’s weekends. And that was the final straw for the father. He filed a contempt motion. She filed a protective order.

What lead them to take the problem all the way to court? Instead of focusing on the practical problem – making sure their son had access to an inhaler – the father and the mother had let the problem become highly personalized:

The father: “The problem here is that she is a scatterbrained control freak who doesn’t trust me to take care of our son.”

The mother: “The problem here is that he is an irresponsible tightwad who blames me for his neglect of our son’s health.”

And to what end? They could have bought two dozen inhalers for what it cost to appear with their attorneys before the judge.

I asked: “Since your son self-administers his medication as needed, why not buy a belt pouch for your son’s pants to hold the inhaler so that it always accompanies him to Dad’s house, to Mom’s house, to school, to athletics, wherever he goes?”

The mother: “That might work.”

The father: “That would solve the problem.”

Their son: “Then let’s go home.”

To keep practical problems from becoming intractable problems, attack the problem, not the person.

Co-parenting woes? Consider Mike's Rules: Mountain Sense

2011-06-20T08:22:00.000-05:00

  I spoke today with Mike, the big friendly man who fills our propane tank, keeps an eye on the house when we aren’t around, and readily shares the philosophies he has developed from twenty years of servicing other people’s homes in our remote mountain community. Asked about his exceptional reputation as honest and reliable, he is more than pleased to share with his customers what he has learned – hoping I think to draw his listener into an implicit but informal working relationship based upon his understanding of what is reasonable and rational. What makes good “mountain sense.”
  So what did I learn about Mike today?
  First, he has no interest in deadbeats: “The ones you have to chase all over the mountain to get paid. Why bother? I can spend my time on quality customers [read reliable] and build our business and be happy doing so.”
  Second, he understands the importance of being reliable in turn: “I tell my daughters: ‘If you take care of the customers, they’ll take care of you, and you will always have a job and a paycheck.’ ”
  Third, he understands the importance of the product he delivers – and that we can’t take for granted (like flatlanders) that it will be readily available when we need it the most. Recalling a harrowing three-hour drive on black ice to deliver the last load of the day, Mike simply noted: “They needed the gas. I understand that. Without it they freeze, the pipes bust, maybe they can’t cook. And by getting it there that day, I know they will be customers forever. On that day, I was their best friend. And I plan on remaining so.”
  Fourth, he understands that people get scared and that it is important not to heighten hot emotions: “Of course those old folks get scared with their fixed incomes and gas prices all over the place. I tell the girls in the office to just listen, let them yell and carry on when things are unsettled. They are just scared. And prices will stabilize. They always do. Tell them that. I tell the girls they have to remember, you want to be water on the fire, not gas.”
   Finally, Mike has a natural instinct for developing a good working relationship. As he tells his customers: “I don’t work for the big gas companies. I work for you.”
Mike “gets it” about good working relationships:
Be reliable – expect reliable.
Recognize the critical value you bring to a working relationship – and never underestimate how much the other parent depends upon it.
Understand that people get scared – and respect their need to say so.
Be the source of reason and calm – not the source of further heightened negative emotions.
Work for the other parent – and they will work for you.

Remember Mike’s rules – and you will always be seen as a good working partner.
For more tips: http://markrotis.com/Tips-for-Divorced-Parents.html

Cognitive dissonance: When we don't walk the talk

2011-06-15T13:11:00.000-05:00

When people marry and have children, they don’t plan to divorce and disrupt the children’s sense of security. They plan to love and support their children, not to take actions that hurt and confuse them. In the midst of divorce, therefore, many parents feel internal conflict between their motivation to do good and their perception that they just might be doing bad.

Social psychologists have a name for this internal dilemma: cognitive dissonance-the discomfort associated with holding two conflicting perspectives at the same time. Such discomfort may include feelings of regret, embarrassment, confusion, guilt, even anger: “What’s going on here? I’m acting in ways that are contrary to what I believe!” In the grip of such feelings, people feel motivated to reduce dissonance by changing their behavior, attitudes and beliefs. For example, who hasn’t recast a lie as a “white lie” to rationalize or minimize the conflict between “I’m not a liar” and “I’m telling a lie”?

It’s not always necessary to rationalize. Most divorcing parents, for example, tolerate the guilt associated with leaving an unhappy marriage despite knowing that the children will likely feel worse.   They reassure themselves and their children that the pain will lessen with time and that the divorce is not intended to hurt them. They accept responsibility for their part in the failed marriage, empathize with the children’s distress, apologize for what the children must experience, and commit to being the best divorced parents they can be.

Other divorcing parents, however, take a different tack. Some decide to remain in an unhappy marriage for the kids rather than proceed with a divorce that conflicts with their core parental beliefs: “I can’t accept the idea of being a divorced parent, that just isn’t right for me or the kids, I’ll hang in there no matter what.”   Indeed, some parents are so internally conflicted that they repeatedly file and then withdraw divorce petitions - going back and forth between their picture of what it means to have an intact family versus a divorced family, neither choice resolving the dissonance between their married unhappiness and their values as parents.

Problems can also occur when divorcing parents rationalize their motivations for getting divorced (“We’re not hurting the children, we’re protecting them from our disagreements”), project blame (“This divorce is her fault, she abandoned all of us, we’re better off without her”), or minimize the effects upon the children (“He wasn’t much involved with the kids anyway, they won’t miss him”).   The goal of these cognitive strategies is primarily self-protective: maintaining a sense of integrity and a positive view of self by justifying actions that might otherwise seem wrong. Such mechanisms provide the parent short term relief, but at the cost of sensitivity to their children’s feelings and experience.

Although everyone uses such strategies, it seems to be “human nature,” parents make a significant mistake when they try to solicit the children’s help in resolving their own cognitive dissonance. For example, a divorcing parent’s perception of their spouse’s bad behavior in the marriage may conflict with a perception of the other parent as committed to their parenting role: “How can they be committed to being a parent and not to being married?” If the potential answer is too hurtful (“Maybe it’s me, maybe I wasn’t such a good partner”), the parent may encourage the children to align with them against the other parent to buttress their rationalization: “It’s not me, see even the kids agree, I’m the best thing they’ve got.” In effect, these children are being asked to shore up one parent’s esteem by rejecting the other.

Children also use cognitive strategies to resolve cognitive dissonance. How do they reconcile one parent’s characterization of the other as irresponsible and selfish if they experience the other parents as, in fact, caring and attentive? One way is to conclude that the parent offering the criticisms is “just angry, I don’t take it seriously, they’ll get over it.” Such a conclusion protects the child from adopting a critical perspective or denying their own experience and enables them to maintain relatedness with both parents. But this approach requires children to tolerate the discomfort of disagreeing: “I don’t see my other parent like you do, now let’s go to the mall.” When children (or their parents) can’t tolerate the dissonance between their own and their parent’s perspectives, they may use less adaptive ways of coping. They may, for example, deny the truth of their experience (“I guess I was being naive”), rewrite history from a negative perspective (“she gave us those great toys just to look like a good parent”), and interpret present experiences exclusively in line with the critical parent’s negative views (“He didn’t come early to pick us up because he was excited to see us; he came early to harass my mom”). This is a key element in the evolution of alienation - the child increasingly adopts one parent’s view (and rejects their own and the other parent’s) to resolve the dissonance. In these instances, children don’t just lose a loving parent; they give up the capacity to think critically for themselves in the service of resolving dissonance.

Yet another way children resolve the dissonance between their own and their parents’ perspectives is to turn away from the parent making the criticisms. In Welcome Back, Pluto, we call this Blowback! Offended by the parent’s negative bias and lack of sensitivity to their needs and feelings, these children resolve the dissonance and protect their independent perspective by adopting a similarly critical perspective towards the one doing the criticizing.

If you want to learn more about cognitive dissonance, an excellent resource is Mistakes were made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Arronson.

http://www.mistakesweremadebutnotbyme.com/index.html

Welcome Back, Summer

2011-06-09T08:55:00.000-05:00

In families struggling with parent-child alienation, Rejected Parents who have viewed Welcome Back, Pluto often say they want their children to see it but are not sure whether they should show it to their alienated children and, if so, when. Under the right circumstances, we have found that showing Pluto to alienated children can be very helpful. After one alienated teen saw it, for example, he remarked: “If I had seen this nine months ago, we would never have been in this mess.”

In many cases, extended summer parenting-time offers an opportunity for Rejected Parents to bring Pluto’s message to the attention of their alienated children. Summer parenting-time is often more relaxed, the children are generally away from the day-to-day influence of the Favored Parent, and the children’s daily, sustained involvement with the Rejected Parent can lead to softened attitudes and a greater willingness to share experiences with the parent they’ve been rejecting. Once this change occurs, even to a small extent, alienated children may be more open to Pluto’s positive messages about the importance of healing damaged relationships and staying out of the middle of their parents’ disagreements. One rejected mother, for example, started a tradition during her summer parenting time of watching a movie every evening with the children. Although they initially resisted, they went along when she explained that watching a movie did not require any interaction but would still be time together. Family members took turns choosing the movie of the night. After a week or so the children actually began enjoying the nightly movie - forgetting that they were supposed to have a bad time. At that point, she began showing Pluto, one chapter an evening, as a “warm up” before the main feature. The children groaned at first, but attended to Pluto’s message and began talking about it in the days thereafter.

This mother did several things right. She waited to present Pluto until the children were relatively relaxed and receptive rather than when they were in the throes of angrily rejecting her. She presented Pluto as something to watch if they wanted to, but she did not insist or demand that they sit down and view it - knowing that doing so would likely increase their resistance. And by reassuring them that she would play just one or two chapters at a time, she persuaded them that “it wouldn’t be so bad.” And most importantly, this mother did not ask the children any questions nor encourage any discussion about Pluto after viewing it with them. She presented it as: “This is a DVD about damaged parent child relationships. You may think it applies to us, you may not, that is up to you to decide. All I ask is that you watch and listen and then decide for yourself if it has anything you can use.” She knew that if she asked them to discuss it afterwards she risked prompting them to argue why Pluto was “stupid” or irrelevant or a waste of time. So when the evening’s chapter concluded, she just turned it off and went on to the main feature. She wanted them to “sit with it” rather than “argue with it.” She wasn’t sure it was making a difference until she overheard them laughing and playing “Marco..Pluto” in the pool - one of the first indications that the children were settling in and enjoying their time in her home.

Summer time, summer time, summer time

2011-06-08T08:42:00.000-05:00

Should parents try to negotiate every issue? Or are there other ways to resolve conflicts?

A father recently presented a common problem for this time of year. His ex-wife declared that she was taking the children for a two-week summer trip during his designated time. She offered to trade two weeks of her time – but said that she would not give up the two-week trip. The father’s dilemma: Accommodate her demand and set a precedent for future summers or dig in his heels and risk escalating conflict.

I told him he had four possible strategies to respond. He could argue that the time was his to control and not hers to take, perhaps even in front of a judge if he felt strong enough. Alternatively, he could problem-solve with her to find a satisfactory solution. A third strategy would be to yield and agree to rearrange his plans to meet her demands. Or, he could take a passive approach and avoid the conflict entirely by withdrawing from further discussion.

Each strategy offered this father different advantages and tradeoffs. And an important tradeoff to consider was whether one approach would make it more difficult to use one of the other strategies should circumstances change.

For example, if he avoided the issue, at least for the moment, he left open the possibility of initiating future discussion once tempers cooled. But there was a significant risk that his ex would interpret this as silent assent with her demand. And, of course, the problem might be more difficult to solve the closer they get to the weeks in question.

In response to his irritation, his first impulse was to take a contentious approach by making extreme demands – insisting upon three weeks in return before agreeing to concede the two she was asking him to give over. He had also spoken to his lawyer about filing a motion with the court to enforce their decree. But I pointed out to him that he also had to consider the risk of undermining his working relationship with his ex, thereby making it more difficult to negotiate future issues that he might want to bring forward. And once he started contending, he might not be able to yield for fear of losing face or appearing weak.

This father eventually settled upon a problem solving strategy. He reframed the issue as a weakness in their divorce decree and suggested they use this as an opportunity to set up a procedure to handle future summer plans. This strategy also left open the possibility of using any of the other three strategies if the problem didn’t resolve satisfactorily.

All four strategies have advantages and drawbacks. Avoiding a problem when everyone needs an opportunity to cool off may be a good short-term approach. Yielding when the issue is relatively insignificant may make practical and relational sense, saving effort and resources for more important issues. But when critical interests are at stake and the other party is opposed to problem solving, forceful strategies may be necessary to protect one’s interests and create important precedents for the future. In the event of a particularly complex problem, a resolution may be achieved with skillful use of all four: avoiding some issues, yielding on others, problem-solving creative solutions to one set of issues, while contending another.

Emotions: Friend or foe to reaching negotiated agreements?

2011-06-06T18:02:00.000-05:00

Emotions impact decisions. We all know that. Momentarily excited about my favorite team's five game winning streak, I impulsively buy tickets to the next home game. Angry at the long wait at the barber shop, I leave abruptly without any idea where I will go next. Sad about a friend's illness, I treat myself to an ice cream cone to feel better.
Emotions similarly affect negotiating behaviors. Anger, for example, leads parents in mediations to feel confident and assertive-but also to be aggressive, demanding, and stubborn. Sadness, in contrast, prompts them to ask for more and settle for less-apparently to change their sad feelings.
So what can be done when emotions seem to be over-powering rational decision-making?
One strategy is to take a time out. Instead of letting anger drive an impulsive decision or sadness to lead to a regrettable one, divorcing spouses and their lawyers can step back and let emotions cool before committing to a course of action. But time out doesn't mean tune out. Acknowledging the source of one's feelings is an important step in reducing their influence. It's a way of putting them in their proper place rather than letting them be all over the place.
It also helps to use such feelings to direct a new line of inquiry. Imagine, for example, that divorcing parents are fed up with a drawn out mediation about what school their child will attend. Neither parent feels the other values their perspective. Rather than suppressing or minimizing one another's point of view, it may help for them to consider the possibility that their strong emotions are really about something else waiting to be identified and worked through. By viewing the angry feelings as a signal to start a new conversation rather than as an obstacle to the present one, these parents have an opportunity to reach a better understanding.
A third strategy to reduce the influence of strong emotions is to compare multiple options rather than to consider just one. Emotions have the strongest influence when decision-makers consider just one alternative at a time. Comparing multiple options, in contrast, triggers critical thinking and rational analysis. The parents at loggerheads over their child's school, for example, should avoid deciding whether one school is acceptable or not (a quick way to get into a "my way or your way" argument). Their discussion will be more successful if they compare the advantages and disadvantages of several schools at the same time.