Mediating in a critical situation

Recently a friend of mine asked about what he described as tactical mediation, or mediating a situation where two parties are at each other's throats and tensions are high. He went on to suggest this might be siblings fighting, or spouses arguing with each other.

Mediation often occurs in the midst of high emotion. It is the mediator's role to control that emotion, and keep both parties focused on an outcome that will meet both their needs. How can this be achieved in a critical situation when two people are at each other's throats? From my own experience, there are a few things that form the basis of how to handle such a situation.

1. Initially, you may need to "referee" the dispute. Chances are tensions are so high that neither is hearing the other. At this point you must hear for both parties. This may require you to physically insert yourself between the two parties in order to get their attention. When emotions are running particularly high, there may be a need to put space between the parties while assuring both that you will listen to both. In fact, even at this very early intervention, you are beginning to set ground rules that lay the foundation for the conflict resolution work that will come next. You begin to lower tensions and emotions by saying to both parties, I understand you are angry and I want to help you with that, but I can only help if one person talks at a time.
2. A confident and calm presence is probably the most important variable for someone mediating in a critical situation. Remaining calm offers a counterpoint to the heightened emotions, and sends the message that although things seem out of control, you feel in control. The confidence suggests that outcomes are not in doubt, and that what is happening (the conflict) is not to be feared or avoided. Indeed it is often out of anger that information can be gathered with respect to what deeper issues may need to be addressed  in resolving the conflict. While remaining confident and calm in the midst of a crisis, those who stuck in the middle of the crisis feel that although things are tense, they are not spinning out of control. You consistently delivers a message that says I am here for you, and I will be here until we resolve this.
3. In the heat of the moment, when voices are raised and emotions are high, it can generally be assumed that the anger is a reflection of the fact that the individual is feeling that they are not being heard. In fact there is a great deal of truth in the tenet that suggests "they aren't yelling because they are angry, they are yelling because they think you haven't heard what they are saying". To counter this, you need to reflect back to the individuals what you are hearing, as well as acknowledging the depth of the emotion, and the importance of the issue to the individual. Often it pays to listen more, and talk less, and when you do talk, insure that you are reflecting what you have heard. Often, in a desire to "fix things" or to avoid continued conflict, a common mistake is to move to suggesting solutions, when in fact what is needed is acknowledgment of what has been heard. You must consistently deliver a message that says I understand you feel strongly about this, and I am interested in hearing more about it.
4. As the first three "tactics" are implemented, tensions will naturally begin to lower, as will emotional levels. When the emotions are running high, both individuals are encouraged to talk to you rather than each other. As the tensions lower, you can now begin to encourage each party to talk to the other. At this point it is critical that the parties are coached, and provided with some strategies to improve the communication between them. As a result, when one of the individuals begins to tell you why they are angry, you may ask the other party if they can describe why the other is angry. Through coaching you can encourage better listening. You might respond by saying, Yes, it kind of sounds like that, but I also heard... Each individual will need to be given the opportunity to talk to the other, and the opportunity to reflect back what they have heard. At this stage, you gradually remove yourself physically, and adopt more of a role of coach on the sidelines, offering encouragement and clarification where necessary.
5. As the individuals begin to hear each other more clearly, and articulate more clearly the source of their anger, your role now switches to one of searching for the common ground that will allow both individuals to realize that they have a vested interest in solving this together. The extent to which this common ground is uncovered is the extent to which a resolution becomes possible. You begin to look for opportunities to point out this common ground. By echoing one party's concerns, and connecting it to a concern of the other, and you might say It sounds to me like you are both worried about...
6. Once both parties have found the common ground, they will now be committed to resolving the conflict. As they begin to talk more to each other, you can help by keeping track of thoughts that are offered as solutions, and helping each individual voice their belief on whether or not a solution is realistic and workable.
7. As a resolution is agreed to, you can now take the opportunity to raise the question Should this not work or another disagreement come up, what can you do so that you don't end up yelling and screaming at each other? You again have the opportunity to teach, and coach communication skills.

Hopefully, the next time you find yourself in a situation where tensions are high, and emotions are charged, the 7 steps outlined above will allow you to step in with confidence, and help the individuals return to a place where they can work together to resolve conflict.