Conflict Mediation and Ombudsman

Conflict Mediation and Ombudsman*

 Tania Almeida**

 Conflict Mediation is a dispute prevention and resolution resource that has provided subsidies for practices that can benefit from a structured process of dialogue.

The rite of dialogue proposed by Mediation is accompanied by techniques, attitudes and procedures aimed at making dialogue between people seeking consensus productive. A productive dialogue is understood to be one that privileges inclusive listening (vs counter-argument), consensus building (vs debate), understanding (vs dispute).

The purpose of this article is to extract from the Conflict Mediation technical contributions and skills that keep affinity with the practice of the ombudsman, aiming to expand its technicality and improve its exercise.

Dialogue in the contemporary world

Since the middle of the last century, man has been increasing the use of dialogue as an instrument for negotiating their dissimilarities. The means of communication brought cultures together and highlighted differences between peoples, making continuous negotiation and a posture of permanent collaboration necessary for the common good. Common markets, business mergers, world forums to deal with the economy, social welfare and the environment are current examples.

The systemic – ecological and globalized – analysis of our existence has made the interdependence between all those who inhabit the Earth unequivocal1. Is today clear that the world economy must be treated systemically and that local changes and accidents of any nature – environmental, social or economic – have repercussions throughout the planet.

Physical force, the imposition of different natures and tables of law are no longer able to resolve complex issues in real time, involving multiple actors with different interests. Particular needs, as well as common, complementary and divergent values, start to guide the dialogues.

Man discovers that giving in to the other or competing exclusively for his own aspirations tarnish the continuity of the social relationship. He also identifies that his assertiveness can be maintained even when he works for the common good, through collaboration and privileges dialogue.

Before, I studied, hard, Negotiation processes2; today, it includes in its research the Dialogue Processes3, its cultural particularities and the possibility of generating constructive or destructive results. They will be constructive or destructive according to the means used to solve them and the results that these means will promote4. It analyzes conflicts and finds positivity in their existence, as they enable changes, which make them welcome to coexist. The study of different conflict management methods and their applicability gains the status of 'search image' of contemporary man.

From this perspective, the possible escalation of conflicts becomes, many times, a symbolic line that allows the diagnosis of the motivations for the disagreement and the election of the appropriate intervention to avoid the rupture of relationships in the future. It is necessary to propose early and customized interventions, that is, that are appropriate to the theme, culture and people involved. Preventive approaches increase in number, gain in quality and in scope. The ombudsman composes this panel of interventions.

Featuring productive dialogue

Dialogues have gained privilege in the contemporary world. They are the basis of all 'win-win' negotiation methods – those that aim at mutual benefit. For negotiations of this nature, they have their own characteristics that make it possible to speak, be heard and have their point of view legitimized and taken as an object of consideration. Dialogues that include these three elements are productive.

This inclusive character of listening - taking the other's point of view as an object of consideration - brings the dialoguers closer to the construction of shared solutions and removes them from the need to argue and counter-argument with the intention of excluding proposals or ideas.

Inclusion is quality raised to the status of primordial in contemporary times: for decision-making processes to gain in quality and in the generation of co-responsibility, all actors involved and their ideas must be included, everyone's points of view must be considered as legitimate and solutions must be created. that meet everyone's interests and needs. It is the co-responsibility generated by shared solutions that will increase the probability of their fulfillment and that will mobilize their actors to repeat the dialogue process on future issues.

In contrast to productive dialogue, there is debate – a form of negotiation of differences that invites the clash and the overthrow of ideas through argumentation and counter-argument. Debate is a 'win-lose' dialogue, which establishes a winner and a loser in the field of ideas or propositions.

The Mediation dialogue process has the characteristics that oppose those of the debate. These characteristics are common to the dialogue mediated by the ombudsmen. Distinctions between productive dialogue and debate follow.

DIALOG	DEbate
We seek to build consensus or, simply, we seek respectful listening and understanding (cooperative).	It seeks to have a winning point of view; consequently, there will be a losing (adversarial) point of view.
One listens to the other to understand him in search of consensus or, only, to understand his point of view.	One reaffirms its point of view without listening to the other, or even listens to the other to the extent of gathering arguments to oppose it.
One takes his point of view as a possibility and takes the other's idea, too, as a possibility.	One takes his point of view to be true and disqualifies the point of view of the other. other.
All participants are expected to have the possibility of flexibilizing their ideas.	Irreducibility and criticism of the position or idea of ​​the other are expected.
The best solution is sought from a mix everyone's idea; everyone contributes to building part of the solution.	We seek the prevalence of one idea(s) over the other(s) and work to exclude the ideas of opponents.
A common understanding is sought.	Differences are marked out competitively and disqualifying.

The world's interest in differences

The world today shows a special interest in diversity. More recently, man has discovered the richness of complementarity resulting from living with dissimilarity – of gender, of ideas, of points of view. He realized that difference enriches rather than hinders, depending on how it is managed.

The distance from the ideas of truth and predictability made possible by postmodern paradigms5 brought us closer to an appreciation for differences. The world became more interesting when considering different points of view as possible versions of the same event – ​​factual or experimental. We abandoned Henry Ford's idea that cars could only be black and uniform and adopted the colors and proposal that car accessories can, and should, be different to meet different demands. Meeting the different needs of customers becomes added value, not an exception to the norm.

The result most desired by the dialogues is also the service and preservation of differences. People from different cultures can sit at the table without the fear of having to bow to the culture or interests of others. Sitting at the negotiating table today means welcoming the interests of everyone who participates in it, keeping their values ​​and their different natures preserved.

The corporate world also takes advantage of this new paradigmatic vision and considers cooperative management a source of wealth for new ideas and ways of dealing with everyday life. Complementarity is no longer welcome only between departments and is also desired among individuals from the same corporate segment.

Personal skills come to be understood as intellectual capital and intangible value and reverse the prestige previously conferred on tangible values ​​– those that can be accounted for. A live to the difference and to what it can expand possibilities! For subjects and for organizations.

An ombudsman service can identify new proposals based on the demands of internal and external customers and, thus, expand its operations: from a system for recording complaints and taking measures to also a service for recording new and different ideas and propositions.

Mediation: an instrument for dialogue, conflict resolution and preservation of differences

Conflict Mediation brings together and articulates the previous reflections: it is an instrument of dialogue, which is predisposed to the management and resolution of conflicts, sewing the interests of all those involved in the search for mutual satisfaction and the preservation of differences.

Born in the course of the last half of the last century, it maintains coherence with the theoretical thoughts and paradigms prevailing at the time, and feeds on them.

As an instrument of dialogue, it reproduces a direct negotiation between people and observes the guides of productive conversations:

• it allows the expression of the people involved with their own voice, through orality, that is, without their voices being written or represented by the voices of third parties;

 

• enables listening and requests that it be inclusive, that is, that it considers the other's point of view as a contribution to be legitimately evaluated and taken into account;

 

• raises awareness of valuing difference as a possibility of expanding alternatives and mutually beneficial solutions;

 

• invites its participants to distance themselves from exclusively serving their own interests and needs and to work in favor of the interests and needs of all those involved in the issue.

As a resource for the management and resolution of disputes, Conflict Mediation stands out from its peers for including, in parallel, the purposes of care and preservation of social relations.

Mediation inspires the emergence of new alternative means of resolving disputes based, in particular, on its techniques and procedures, as well as on the objective of preserving the social relationship between those directly and indirectly involved in a disagreement.

It invites those who have decision-making power over a divergence to take a leading role and maintain authorship, requesting that those who have decision-making power over a divergence sit at the table to be the authors of resolution solutions. It distances those involved from the passive posture of handing over the decision about their lives to third parties and brings them closer to the full exercise of citizenship, enabling them to actively take responsibility not only for their lives, but also for the positive and negative consequences of their decisions on third parties. who do not participate directly in the negotiations.6

As a tool that respects dissimilarities, Mediation works towards a non-uniform consensus, stitching together the interests of all those involved in the search for mutual satisfaction and the preservation of differences.

The work towards the preservation of the social relationship makes Mediation the instrument of choice for interactions that will continue over time, regardless of the desire of the people involved in an issue - relationships of kinship, neighborhood, work, those that involve contracts and that make up different types of coexistence.

Preserving the social relationship, in these cases, must be an objective that is as or more important than building agreements. existing social relationship.

The deconstruction of the conflict between people and the co-authorship in search of solutions of mutual benefit enhance not only the fulfillment of the agreement but, especially, give sustainability to the social relationship between them.8

The ombudsman is, among others, a proposal for dialogue that has been fed by procedures and techniques arising from Mediation.

The entry of the means of conflict resolution in coexistence environments

Dispute settlement media used to inhabit sites outside the contexts that had produced the disagreements. Disagreeing individuals turned to impartial third parties outside their daily lives – religious or social leaders, judges or arbitrators – and asked them for help with their disagreement.

In reality, this was an alternative to direct dialogue, long forgotten as the main means of conflict resolution. It was because direct dialogue began to include violence and show insufficiency that human beings created the laws that would govern their interaction and made use of third parties to delegate to them the solution of their questions.

The internal capacity to assess situations and consider the other as an object of care when creating solutions gave way to external judgment, exercised by specialists who advise or offer solutions, governed by justice guides, including equity and laws.

At this moment, however, the 'one on one dialogue' and the Aristotelian principles9 of coexistence are in their era of rescue, when the means of prevention or resolution of approaching controversies of direct negotiation are privileged. This movement brings back the possibility of resolution to the living environment itself. Instruments are created based on the maintenance of privacy and secrecy, on the celerity and permanence of the resolution of issues in their places of origin.

Conflict Management Systems10 enter the corporate world and invite everyone to dialogue, using the most different approach designs, before an adversarial solution takes place.

Dialogue Facilitation processes - processes inspired by Mediation, without preserving its rite, designed for each situation, according to the needs of each moment, culture and place - reach communities and encourage their members to direct dialogue and social pacification . The Alternative Conflict Resolution Methods (MASC) conquer the world and provoke people to deal with their differences, and to live with them, with respect, giving them legitimacy.

Living spaces bring within their walls countless ways of dealing with and managing differences and controversies, using the conflicting people's own abilities to do so and giving them a leading role. The ombudsman is an example of this.

Some reflections articulating Mediation and ombudsman

Mapping of situations that seek dialogue as a means of understanding

Inspired by the Russian philosopher Korzybski (1879-1050), for whom “maps are not territories” –, we can say that narratives are maps, not territories, since they describe particular versions of what happened. This metaphor has been useful for us to understand that the subjects only offer a personal description of the facts or feelings that motivated the disagreements.

Even though it is not territory, the map provides a panoramic view – components, routes, accidents – and enables safer traffic, guided by strategies and goals. As it is not the territory and because weather conditions, chance and contingencies interfere in any plan, maps need to be followed carefully and be permanently updated. That is why we consider the mapping of a conflict or disagreement as an important element for outline solution strategies. Classically, the simplest conflict or situation mapping process includes 3Ps: people (who are the actors involved), problem (what is the issue from the point of view of each of these actors) and process (what has been tried so far). the moment). Knowing these three parameters helps to delineate a path of interviews and actions, aiming to include all those involved, knowing the map of each one and avoiding unproductive attempts already made.

More complex mapping processes identify the positions adopted by actors (what they say they want), their interests and values ​​(what is really important and is protected by the position adopted), the negotiation strategies of each actor, the alliances and coalitions between them and the emotional relationships between all (sympathy, revenge, antipathy).

In an ombudsman's work, a situation mapping can broaden or restrict the ombudsman's field of approach, as well as optimize his actions.

Participation of impartial third parties in dialogue processes aimed at understanding

Impartial third parties are subjects who act in formal or informal negotiations facilitating dialogue between those who are in disagreement. Numerous instruments for negotiating differences require third parties to act impartially.

There are two extremes of their participation: they can base their actions on the creation of a collaborative context that encourages the parties to abandon adversarial positions and build consensus (like the mediators), or on the binding deliberation on how the issue should be resolved ( such as referees and judges). Between these two extremes, there are third parties who have opinions, but do not deliberate (such as conciliators and religious leaders).

In all situations in which the continuity of the social relationship is desirable and, in many cases, necessary, the performance of a third party that acts with impartiality, credibility and diligence in promoting dialogue between people in disagreement is welcome. We will refer to these situations as 'social relationships continued over time'.

In addition to the necessary continuity in time, the emotion mobilized by the disagreements that occurred in these relationships and the desirable understanding arising from shared solutions that serve everyone are aspects that benefit from the performance of third parties in facilitating these dialogues.

An impartial third party can take care of all the aspects mentioned, due to special training and sensitivity11, as well as, and particularly, due to the affective distance in relation to the people involved and the problem at hand. For coherence, this third party, who is willing to act impartially, is asked to assess their ability to be independent in relation to the conflicting parties and the matter to be dealt with.

The participation of third parties instrumentalized to act as impartial in the dialogues can be of enormous help in maintaining the goal of building shared solutions, in the preservation of the social relationship between the actors and in the preservation of their self-esteem and consequent prevention of the escalation of the conflict.

An ombudsman is an impartial third party who will need to observe ethical assumptions common to mediators – impartiality, independence, credibility, diligence and confidentiality.

Social relations continued over time and resolution methods based on dialogue and mutually beneficial solutions

Social relations continued over time demand constant interaction, whether we like it or not and, consequently, interdependence. Whenever the continuity of the social relationship is desirable or necessary, situations will benefit from 'win-win' methods.

The ombudsman, in general, mediate dialogues of this type of relationship, whose management may be decisive for the maintenance of the social, functional or professional relationship between those involved in the disagreement.

Situations that generate great mobilization of emotion

Individuals in disagreement are in permanent negotiation with themselves and with their self-esteem12. They produce ideas, arguments and counter-arguments, not only to defend points of view, but also to defend self-esteem. Everyone wants to do well in negotiations with others.

In some of these situations, depending on the relevance of the subject or the relevance of the relationship between the actors, doing well is mandatory. The search for success in negotiation can make subjects more attentive to the possibility of being winners than to the merits of the issue. The detachment from the merits of the issue distances them from their interests and values ​​and leads them to a relational game that offers the trophy not to the one who fought for the good cause but to the one who defeated the other or caused him harm.

The ombudsman's offices, in a large percentage of their work, are sought after by people who are dissatisfied with some link in the operationalization of a service, with the quality of a product or with some moment of coexistence with other actors in the interactive chain. Helping these claimants to focus on the issues raised and/or to well discriminate the emotional component of their claims can be of great value to the service.

Shared solutions – situations that demand consensus building

Social relationships continued over time and situations that generate great Emotion mobilization – two of the factors mentioned above – are very often associated with situations that demand consensus building.

We understand here by 'consensus building' the decision-making process in which all the actors involved in the issue invest efforts to identify solutions that meet the interests and needs of all, so that the resolution reached gives, also for all, a satisfaction standard13.

The result of conversations that seek consensus is similar to a patchwork quilt that includes the most different pieces (everyone's ideas), so that the quilt is harmonious. This requires a change in the attitude of the people who are in dialogue because they will need to think, throughout the conversation, how their patch (their idea) matches the patch (the idea) of the other(s), so that the solution contemplates everyone's ideas and results in harmony.

In the construction of consensus, one also works thinking about attending to the other, and not about overthrowing the proposition. Governed by this proposal, the most important thing is the quilt and not the flap, which demands an attitude that privileges the articulation of the different contributions (and relationships), and not the valorization of the idea itself.

Ombudsmen may occasionally act in disagreements between people. Putting people in dialogue implies inviting them to solutions of mutual benefit with a consensual quality, that is, not only the satisfaction of each one will indicate the adequacy of the chosen solution; it is also necessary that there is acceptance by all for the set of proposed solutions.

When the impartial third party is a mediator: ethical principles

In Mediation, we include a third party who assists in a negotiation with the special objective of enabling people to be the authors of the decision and that the social relationship between them is preserved.

A mediator does not opine or deliberate. It works primarily with questions that expand the options already thought of by people in disagreement; deconstructs impasses that may be hampering the negotiation; invites participants into productive dialogue, helping them to make a clear distinction between dialogue and debate.

Any capable person can act as a mediator. Mediation does not require academic training to perform the function, but a specific training course on the subject. In general, the training courses for mediators have a theoretical program and include the attendance of real cases with face-to-face supervision. Such training is what gives the mediator the competence to act in the role, a requirement of its Code of Ethics. This performance requires skills and attitudes, knowledge of technical resources and an attitude based on ethical principles in addition to competence.

Another ethical requirement is impartiality – trying to be neutral towards everyone who is in disagreement. Impartiality is an attitude that needs to be worked on in Mediation, since, as human beings, we naturally identify with a person, a way of being, a way of saying things and exposing ideas. The mediator needs to know his partiality – with which of the mediates he has more affinity depending on the way he presents his ideas – in order to be able to take care, 'actively', of an impartial performance in that situation. We call this dynamic and permanent care for the mediates 'active impartiality'.

In more formal work contexts, mediators sign a Term of Independence14 before it starts, attesting that, after getting to know the people who are in disagreement and the subject that brings them to the process, they identify that they can act impartially.

Mediation works with secrecy, another ethical requirement, that is, the conversations that take place during the meetings are confidential. The mediator is ethically barred from revealing the content of these conversations, even if called upon to testify in court.

All persons participating in Mediation, including the institution's employees who have access to the case, must commit to confidentiality. The extent of secrecy that will be practiced by the parties is negotiated between them. They will negotiate with each other what topics will be shared with other people and who those people are.

The role of a mediator is similar to that of a conductor. He will coordinate the dialogue between everyone as the conductor coordinates the melodic interaction between the instruments. Like the conductor, a mediator needs the sound coming from the mediates– their voices, interests and needs – be heard and participate in the final melody, which is agreement/consensus. The conductor-mediator only lends his voice to govern the other voices, but not to be part of the final melody. If an instrument-person that is involved in mediation has a much stronger sound than the other, it is up to the conductor to balance the participation of both so that one sound does not overwhelm the other and so that the two integrate the final melody.

How Mediation can serve as an inspiration for ombudsman work

Mediation has a structured rite in stages that must be preserved in its practice. Inspired by the procedures – ways of conducting the dialogue – and the techniques used in Mediation, without sticking to their step by step, has been extremely useful for contexts that support part of their work in facilitating dialogue between people or groups. The practice of the ombudsman is one of them.

The contact with the step-by-step description of the dialogue process15 used in the Mediation, aiming at the observance of its intention and the importation of procedures and techniques adopted there, can help contexts such as the ombudsman, in identifying what they consider relevant to import for their practical needs.

• Step One – Pre-Mediation (Introduction)

In this step, we describe the Mediation process to people, identifying its scope and limits and describing how the mediator will act, so that participants can choose, or not, the institute as an instrument for dialogue between them. Also, at that moment, we listened to people about the issue that motivates the search in order to identify whether this is the appropriate means of resolution to help them, as well as whether we are the professionals indicated for the topic and the situation.

Conversations of any nature benefit from an introductory moment – ​​an initial step in which we tell all the participants what the objectives of the meeting or meeting are and listen to them about what would interest them to be discussed there.

A didactic approach, helping the participants of the dialogue to make a good distinction between a conversation aimed at debate and one that aims at consensus, can integrate this stage and help people to act with a more collaborative attitude in the Mediation process.

• Second step – Storytelling

Giving opportunity for the narrative of each person who participates in a conversation is an essential step for productive dialogues. Receiving them in environments that translate welcoming and with an attitude that demonstrates availability to listen to them also helps them to express themselves.
It is up to the third party who coordinates dialogues involving two or more people to use techniques and strategies that facilitate the fluidity and effectiveness of these moments. These techniques and strategies are based on the theoretical assumptions that guide the chosen dialogue process and are operationalized, at each moment, in line with the situation, the work style of the third party and the members of the dialogue.

Here are some topics that deserve to be taken care of, at this stage, by the person acting as a third party:

•  Attention to different narratives16

In general, stories of disagreement concern an objective agenda (the subject that generated the disagreement) and a subjective agenda (the feelings aroused by the disagreement and the way the other is treated as a result). Sometimes, one person is more in charge of talking about the subject, and another is more in charge of talking about the feeling. The two agendas (subject and feeling) must be accepted and shown to those who participate in the dialogue, since, most of the time, they do not realize that, in order to resolve the disagreement, they will need to take care of both the motivating theme and the feelings generated by the disagreement.

Both agendas need to be validated by the dialogue coordinator. The best way to legitimize them is to show that they were perceived by the facilitator and that they will be dealt with, in due course, throughout the dialogue process.

• Attention to interests, needs and values

Even during the telling of stories, the impartial third party also needs to pay attention to the interests, needs and values ​​that underlie the discourses. In general, people arrive saying what they want and how they want to resolve the disagreement. Harvard School negotiation theorists call this initial proposal of action or solution a 'position' and demonstrate that positions tend to be rigid (and contrary, hence part of the disagreement), hiding the interests, needs and values ​​that are, in fact, the objects of the lawsuit.

To get to know the interests and needs, facilitators of dialogue ask why/for what someone wants what they want. To know the values, they ask why what the person wants is so important. The technique of active listening is of vital importance at this stage of storytelling, as it includes questions to identify interests and values, and is based on three pillars:

1) reception and legitimation: our gaze and our attention must be directed towards the person who is speaking to demonstrate that the topic brought up is relevant;

2) balance: a dialogue facilitator needs to take care that the conversations are balanced. For this it is necessary that everyone has a voice and time at equal times; everyone has a listening and welcoming attitude towards the speaker; everyone receives equal treatment from the dialogue facilitator;

3) questions: Mediation was inspired by the Socratic dialogue, adopting it as a guide in the formulation of questions. Socrates, the son of a midwife, talked to people with the intention that they would gestate and give birth to their own ideas, after reflecting on their beliefs and speeches based on common sense and culture. Questions are the main intervention tool for mediators. They are not naive interventions, as they invite to different scenarios from those already visited by people in dialogue and to different feelings. For this reason, Mediation privileges the questions that generate reflection and information for the mediates, since they will be the authors of the solutions. Some qualities of questions must be worked out very carefully and should only be asked in private interviews. This spectrum includes self-evaluative questions – which encourage the identification of the subject’s own participation in the event – ​​and those that invite people to put themselves in the other’s shoes, an arduous task when one is immersed in disagreement.

• Joint interviews and private interviews

The telling of stories is a step in any conversation process. In the case of Mediation, it can occur through joint interviews or private interviews. Joint interviews are those that bring together all the people in disagreement at the same time, and private interviews are those that are received separately.

Private interviews are specially reserved for dealing with the subjective agenda mentioned above. They allow for greater exposure of people and must be conducted with great care, including the possibility of secrecy of some, or all of the themes brought up.

Joint interviews are an opportunity for mutual listening and speaking. Equally delicate in conduct, they require mastery in their coordination, in order to give everyone a voice and time. It is also the task of the dialogue facilitator to manage the moods and the expression of affections brought to the conversation, in order to ensure that they do not constitute an impasse for everyone's listening and participation.

Many technical contributions arising from theories of human communication were incorporated by Mediation and are especially useful in the storytelling phase. Some of these contributions may also be useful for the practice of ombudsmen, namely:

• Inclusive and exclusive listening

Inclusive listening is one in which what the other says is considered as a possibility. In this way, dialogue and dialogue are enriched, who begin to articulate the contributions of the other with their own ideas and expand them.

Exclusive listening is understood to be the one in which the other is heard, also with great attention, in the right measure to build a good contrary argument. In fact, the other is not really heard. His speech serves only as a basis for counter-argument, which preferably uses the subject's own words and expressions to detract from his speech. In contrast, exclusive listening prevails. In collaborative dialogue, inclusive listening is indispensable.

• form and content

Our speech, as well as our written messages convey information through their content. The way we present this content is the form – the packaging that involves the information –, which is expressed primarily through non-verbal language.

Verbal language (what is said) and non-verbal language (how is said what is said) must also be the object of attention of the impartial third party.

The form is relational and includes a 'meta-message' – through the form we talk about the quality of the relationship we have with the other and about how we allow ourselves to treat them (with greater or lesser kindness, with greater or lesser respect). Human beings privilege form over content and often refuse a proposal, a speech, an approach, depending on the way they are being presented17.

• Abstracts with a positive connotation

The summaries – syntheses of what was presented by the person in his speech – and the positive connotation – transformation of negative meanings and expressions into positive ones – go together in Mediation and make up an intervention of enormous potential. Presenting positively transformed summaries can occur at all times in a conversation.

They make it possible for people to feel understood when they hear their speech reproduced by the dialogue facilitator; make it possible to take care of the collaborative environment of the conversation, as the use of positive terms is proposed by the facilitator; they allow retrieving the evolutions achieved in the previous meeting when presented at the beginning of a new stage of the work; they expand listening since the unpleasant speech of the other is reproduced, in a transformed way, by the voice of the third person; they articulate common interests, needs and values, not perceived by the people in dialogue.

• Transforming accusations into topics of common interest

The accusations are an integral part of the dialogues based on the disagreement. People in litigation speak primarily in the third person singular, focusing on the other's inadequacies and actions responsible for the disagreement.

Transforming lies into a need for trust, aggressions in a need for respect, disrespect in a need for recognition are interventions that help to interrupt the accusatory process, especially if we point out that attitudes of trust, respect and recognition can be exercised in two ways, taking the focus exclusive of the subject who was the spokesperson for the aggression or disrespect.

• Attention to the network of belonging of people in disagreement18

People in disagreement comment with their peers – their networks of relevance – about what happened, and from them they gain adhesion to their suffering and the way of interpreting the facts. Examples of belonging/pertinence networks are: family, friends, co-workers, religious groups, among others.
These networks of people start to show solidarity with the person who gave them the story about the annoyance, even because they are stories that always favor whoever is telling the story. Supported by these networks, individuals in disagreement establish a commitment of fidelity with them, depending on the reception offered, which makes it difficult to build agreement or consensus with the other party with whom they are in conflict or disagreement.

Some membership networks help to reduce conflict – with their comments and advice – and others help to amplify it. Knowing the extent of networks in solidarity with conflict is important information for the dialogue facilitator. This information will help you identify the need to bring some of the members of these networks. Sometimes, it is necessary to help people to negotiate a change of position with their networks of relevance, before building consensus with the other with whom they are in disagreement.

• Third step – Agenda Construction and Negotiation

While listening to people, the dialogue facilitators identify an agenda of subjects (objective and subjective) that should be visited, in due course, item by item. The visit to each item aims to: (i) verify with the people who expressed themselves whether the facilitator's understanding is correct, enabling its ratification or rectification; (ii) assist in building consensus on dissenting issues and (iii) help operationalize solutions to issues that require action.

At this stage of the Mediation process, negotiation techniques have primacy and are of great help in the facilitation work and in the progress of the dialogue. Four are the Harvard School negotiation principles19 that offer special support to the Mediation process – the first two, at the storytelling stage and the last two, at this stage:

1) Separating the existing relationship between people in disagreement with the issue to be resolved: it helps in the construction of objective and subjective guidelines and in the realization that the attack must be against the problem of common interest and not against people;

2) Discriminate positions of interests: helps to identify what people really appreciate – the interests, needs and values ​​to be preserved – and need to be considered in the composition;

3) Create mutually beneficial solutions: favors the construction of a collaborative posture among the participants in the dialogue, in the construction of sustainable solutions and in the preservation of the social relationship;

4) Use objective criteria in the face of impasses, to operationalize solutions: it helps people to be guided by norms, customs or other criteria that distance them from emotional solutions and bring them closer to parameters understood by all as acceptable, desirable or fair.

• Building an agenda of interests, needs and values

As we saw earlier, the most effective way a dialogue facilitator can help people build consensus is by showing them the interests, needs, and values ​​they need to see evidenced in the conversation and addressed in the agreement they build.
Those who are emotionally involved in the issue are unaware of the frequent convergence of these interests and values. It is the facilitator of dialogues, through questions, which will enable the emergence of this evidence and help to identify alternatives to meet them.

• Expansion of alternatives, choice of solution options and feasibility assessment

With the agenda of interests, needs and values ​​built, the facilitator helps people to create solutions that meet everyone's needs, for each item worked on. It is the facilitator who chooses the order of issues that will be the object of consensus building. It is the parts that create the solutions.

The facilitator chooses the order of topics to be negotiated with the objective of initiating the conversation about generating solutions for those issues that meet the interests of all people and that are also less likely to provoke tension.

The use of such criteria for the choice of themes makes it possible for the formulation of alternative solutions to be more successful; starting with topics that only serve one of the parties or that generate a lot of tension puts the first phase of the negotiation at risk. This initial success helps create a positive and collaborative climate for this and subsequent steps.

The facilitator must also act as an agent of reality, helping people to assess whether what they are choosing as a solution is likely to be put into practice, so that agreements are not created that will not be fulfilled. Another relevant assessment at this point is that of the costs and benefits of each solution, both for those who are deciding - the people who were in disagreement - and for third parties indirectly involved in the solutions - all those who will have to manage the consequences of what is being decided .

When the facilitator is a mediator, he will be ethically prevented from offering solutions or proposals for agreement to the mediated. What motivates this ethical impediment is the fact that mediation works in search of the genuine authorship of people in the solutions created and chosen.

• Helping people think about inclusive solutions: AND instead of OR

The competitive posture resulting from disagreements makes people offer competitive readings and solutions. A dialogue based on consensus building requires the opposite of this posture. It requires sitting at the table with availability to create solutions of mutual benefit and satisfaction. This is a posture that contradicts what we are used to doing. Usually, we sit at the table of conversations or negotiations to defend our own ideas and, preferably, to see them winning.

Facilitators of dialogues that aim at consensus need to invite people to a paradigm shift in terms of objectives and behavior: to think and propose solutions that serve both parties and leave them satisfied. As in a patchwork quilt, all ideas are welcome, differences are privileged and must be composed in a harmonious way.

• Invite the parties in conflict to think about MAN (best negotiated alternative) and PAN (worst negotiated alternative)

Immersed in disagreement, people are blunted by anger and resentment in their ability to assess the costs and benefits of a situation or solution. The invitation for them to evaluate the best alternative (MAN) and the worst alternative (PAN) of solution to the issue can help them to create margins that guide the construction of alternative solutions, between the ideal and the undesirable.

Some ideal solutions may not satisfy both of you at the time, but they may become possible or desirable in the future. In these situations, they can become a goal to be achieved by everyone and be part of an agreement that includes a step by step that will walk in progressive steps until the ideal solution is reached (eg certain contractual changes, changes of people of one sector to another, changes in the operation of some procedure).

 Fourth step - Establishment of Commitment

The establishment of compromise between people who were in disagreement is built little by little in the course of the dialogue. each of previous stages invites the progressive deconstruction of the conflict and subsequent restoration of the social relationship (recovery of dialogue between people).

The deconstruction of the conflict and the work aimed at restoring the social relationship take place, especially when the subjective agenda is addressed (in joint or private meetings) and makes it possible to build solutions in co-authorship. For co-authorship to take place – in dialogues of any nature – consensus building needs to take place with mutual respect and with a vision of solutions that benefit everyone.
Thus, the establishment of a compromise with what was agreed is fed and sustained by the deconstruction of the conflict, the restoration of the social relationship, the co-authorship of the proposed solutions and mutual satisfaction.

• Drafting the agreement built by consensus

It is usual in Mediation that the agreements are written in the language of the mediates, using what is positive and collaborative in their form of expression, so that they recognize themselves as co-authors of the text and the proposed solutions, as well as identify and privilege the positive reading of your actions.

It is also important that there is a balanced wording about what the individuals agreed to. The use of the third person plural (agreed, agreed, resolved, decided) helps the participants in the dialogue to identify collaborative work in the production of solutions and helps to raise awareness of co-responsibility in fulfilling these solutions.

The agreements must gain the necessary direction according to the will of the people and/or the requirements of the matter. Some agreements, in accordance with the mediated matter, need to gain legal language and be ratified by a judge. Others, when signed by the intermediaries and by two witnesses, gain the status of an extrajudicial executive title, that is, the value of a contract.

Sometimes people prefer agreements to be informal and see no need to draft them. In these cases, a handshake, a word given, a hug or acknowledgment of the mistake and/or an apology are sufficient.

Following the Mediation process step by step and knowing the techniques that help to operationalize each stage of this institute have contributed to the improvement of the practice of facilitators of other types of dialogue. Due to its transdisciplinary quality, Mediation has grouped a set of procedures and techniques that work towards the productivity of dialogue. have this set as inspiration, it enables other types of work based on dialogue, such as the ombudsman, to find greater effectiveness.

Sophistication of ombudsman skills20

In addition to the search for solutions to the issues that come to an ombudsman service and the optimization of communication between people and between people and institutions, an ombudsman can act decisively for the growth and improvement of the organization where he is inserted.

By establishing contact and communication between users and the organization, the ombudsman's offices allow for a special dedication to the collection of data that will contribute to the strategic and evaluative processes of these organizations.

The careful formatting and systematic forwarding of this data to the management body will favor the diagnosis of positive actions and failures and, consequently, will contribute to the continuity or redirection of actions.

An ombudsman can be a fundamental part of an organization's information management system and categorize the information it receives in a way that substantially contributes to quantitative and qualitative research. Its work, when directed to this end, will make it possible to compile elements and data that generate inputs for the redirection of strategies and for the continuous improvement of processes and services.

The fact that it acts as a vehicle for integration and communication between internal and external customers and the organization, and between internal customers among themselves, allows the ombudsman to settle existing and potential conflicts, undoubtedly contributing to reducing costs, administrative processes and judicial, as well as to increase productivity and expand the improvement of interactions. Its action can be preventive and curative in relation to disagreements and conflicts.

It is a quality of contribution that positively interferes in the life course of individuals and organizations. It is a quality of intervention that transcends preserving the organization's image or avoiding the escalation of an annoyance. The result of an ombudsman service can have enormous social repercussions, since it helps people gain in physical and mental health, organizations gain in subsidies for growth and in productivity, and both – subjects and organizations – gain sustainability in their relationships.

Final considerations

Having an ombudsman service attests, in advance, to belonging to a culture that is favorable to dialogue as a negotiation instrument.

Because Mediation is focused on social pacification and the deconstruction of conflicts and because it borrowed knowledge from many other disciplines, it offers a 'toolbox'21 – procedures and techniques – well stocked with resources based on principles of communication and negotiation, useful for dialogues that aim at negotiation based on interests and in the construction of solutions of mutual benefit, common guides, also, to the ombudsman.

Importing from Conflict Mediation instruments that help the practice of the ombudsman transcends the objective of improving its exercise, since these guides can also, when incorporated, affect the quality of the social interactions of the subjects - facilitator and parties - who participate in this quality of dialogue.

The invitation to collaboration and understanding can be accepted while we act as impartial third parties, coordinating the dialogue between people or groups, but also in our daily actions when we are, equally, actors in social interaction with others.

Ombudsmen play a key role in organizations. They act as interlocutors who facilitate dialogue and manage conflicts, impacting interpersonal relationships, the maintenance of social, functional and professional relationships, productivity, costs and intra and inter-organizational relationships with their interventions.

It is worth mentioning, however, that an adequate interaction and accurate presentation of the data obtained during the exercise of the ombudsman, for the management units, may be fundamental in the maintenance of positive practices or in the redirection of what lacks adequacy, aiming at organizational improvement. as a whole.

For any of these tasks, the communication and negotiation resources provided by Mediation will make a special difference in the quality of these interlocutions.

______________

* Text published in 2009.

** Lecturer and Consultant in Conflict Mediation and Dialogue Facilitation. Director-President of MEDIARE – Dialogues and Decision-Making Processes. Doctor. Postgraduate in Neuropsychiatry, Psychoanalysis, Sociology and Business Management. Master's student in Conflict Mediation.

1 Fridjof Capra (1982) explores this idea – previously systematized as a theory in the work of Bertalanffy (1977) – in Mutation Point. Maria José Esteves Vasconcellos (2002) is a scholar on the subject and develops it with mastery in Systems thinking: the new paradigm of science.

2 The Harvard Law School Negotiation Project produced concepts understood to be basic in the field of negotiation. Part of this work can be found in the book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreements without Concessions by Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton (1994).

3 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Dialogue Project has been working with the peculiarities of dialogue processes. The work Dialogue and the art of thinking together, by William Isaacs (1999), includes part of this investigation.

4 Morton Deutsch (1973) is responsible for the idea that conflicts are not constructive or destructive in themselves, calling attention to the importance of the chosen means to manage them and attributing to these means the responsibility for constructive or destructive results.

5 Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the constructivist and social constructionist vision, as well as quantum physics are examples of thoughts that have moved us away from ideas that were cult until modernity, such as the ideas of predictability, certainty and truth.

6 Marinés Suares (1996) and Christopher Moore (1998) are authors whose works can expand information on the Mediation process, its principles and characteristics.

7 Transformative Mediation, advocated by Bush and Folger (2004), privileges the restoration of social relationships to the construction of agreements and understands that agreements are a natural consequence of the transformation of conflict and relationship.

8 The idea of ​​'deconstructing' conflicts is inspired by the expression coined by Derrida (Johnson, 2001) and is widely defended by Calcaterra (2002).

9 The Virtue Ethics proposed by Aristotle invites man to analyze and evaluate his attitudes, at each moment, taking into account the repercussions on the other, with a view to guiding his behavior in this analysis.

10 Conflict Management Systems are dialogue processes that can be implemented in organizations, especially in the corporate world, based on paradigmatic changes for coexistence, as they invite subjects to privilege dialogue in negotiating differences and managing disagreements. Some of this knowledge can be found in Designing conflict management systems: a guide to creating productive and healthy organizations (Constantino and Merchant, 1996).

11 Luis Alberto Warat (2001) strongly defends the idea that the sensitivity of mediators needs to integrate their skills and be worked on in their training.

12 Psychology of Mediation (Fiorelli, Malhadas Junior and Moraes, 2004) is a work that explores the emotional processes of individuals in disagreements and articulates them with their participation as mediators in Mediation situations.

13 The number of scholars dedicated to the topic of 'consensus building' is increasing and the identification of its special applicability in public policies is increasing (Susskind, McKearnan and Thomas-Larmer, 1999).

14 The Code of Ethics for mediators proposed by CONIMA – National Council of Mediation and Arbitration Institutions – is available at: .

15 The description of this step by step of the Mediation process articulated to the techniques and procedures used makes up the author's master's thesis, under development at the Master Latinoamericano Europeo en Mediación de Conflictos of the Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosh, in collaboration with the Universitat de Barcelona and the University of Buenos Aires.

16 Narrative mediation (Winslade and Monk, 2008) is a work especially dedicated to the valuation of narratives in a process of Mediation.

17 Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interaction Patterns, Pathologies, and Paradoxes (22) is a work specially dedicated to the topic (Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson, 1967).

18 ..

 19 Reference made earlier to the Harvard Negotiation Project, from the Harvard Negotiation School of Law.

20 Antonio S. Rito Cardoso (2006) wrote an article that invites us to take a broader view of the role of ombudsman and highlights some of its attributions.

21 The expression 'toolbox', referring to the technical contributions used in Mediation, is the title of the author's publication, available at: < > (Almeida, 08). The work Herramientas para trabajar en Mediación (Diez and Tapia, 2009) is also dedicated to this purpose.