Star Trek, Leonard Nimoy, Mr. Spock and Mediation

I have been a fan of Star Trek since the very first program, viewed by me as a high school senior in the fall of 1966.

Watching Star Trek as a group was a weekly occasion during my early years as an undergraduate at Stanford.  Watching reruns on an almost daily basis on my little black and white TV hooked into the local Ithaca, N.Y. cable network in graduate school at Cornell, was a way to preserve my sanity in the pressure cooker of an Ivy League graduate environment.  After a while, all I needed was about ten seconds of introductory music to know which episode I was about to watch.  I was overjoyed when the cast of characters came back in the Star Trek movies which began with the first one released in 1979 and followed by my particular favorite, “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”, in 1982.  Over the years, I have seen every Star Trek movie and every episode of every subsequent television series which followed the original (even visiting the “Star Trek Experience” at the Hilton in Las Vegas, Nevada, twice).  I was one of the most eager fans to see the recent reboot of the entire concept in the latest movies starring “new kids” like Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto and Zoe Saldana.  As a nearly 50-year devotee of the entire Star Trek franchise, I was not disappointed to see how it was redone for another generation of fans (and, of course how Mr. Spock reappeared – twice).  I was thrilled with the success of these new movies.

Like many thousands (nay, millions) of fans, I mourn Leonard Nimoy’s recent death.

This article gives me a chance to really consider why Mr. Spock as portrayed by Leonard Nimoy has always been my favorite Star Trek character and how this relates to what I do as a Mediator and Group Facilitator.

In mediation, I try to help people use logic to come to a resolution of their differences, but here is always an emotional component to these disputes.  Spock’s Vulcan heritage pushed him inexorably to the logical (and often scientific) solution to a problem.  The emotional humans and other beings around him didn’t always react well to pure logic.  So it goes in mediation.  To help people to resolve problems, reason and logic must be paired with emotional closure for people to be truly satisfied with a solution.  In any dispute, the details of the resolution will involve actions to be taken by everyone involved: “I will pay you for the damages to your car by the end of this month.”  However, the emotional component of the agreement is what may make it last: “I apologize for my carelessness when I ran into your car with mine.”  The mutual use of logic and emotion makes such an agreement even stronger: “I will write you a receipt for your payment and then drop my claim against you for damaging my car, and I accept your apology.”  It takes time (and work by both the parties and the mediator) to get to this dual solution, but it is worth it.

Spock’s logic often found solutions to the life and death problems faced by the crew of the Enterprise.  But it was often the emotional knowledge – the empathy – possessed by other crewmembers (and sometimes found by Spock deep within himself) that discovered the real, satisfying solutions to the weekly conflicts presented to us on Star Trek.  The pairing of logic and emotion within the TV show and within Spock, himself, mirrors what we all face in the conflict we deal with on a daily basis.  As a mediator, I must never forget to acknowledge both those faces of conflict, just as, eventually, Spock always confronted his own dual nature.

GROUP FACILITATION AND MEDIATION: When do you know it’s time to quit?

As a Group Facilitator and Mediator, I know that my primary job is to help people talk to each other about their wants, needs, positions, feelings, opinions, etc. – in other words, all of the elements of any disagreement, whether major or minor.

 
If I do this well, parties typically come to some sort of resolution of their conflict.  A group of relatively like-minded individuals may reach agreement on an action plan for their group (e.g., the Board members of a non-profit organization).  Two individuals in a workgroup may sign a Memorandum of Understanding concerning how they will work together in harmony (or, at least, without overt hostility) in the future.  A large group of people with very diverse points of view may agree on a way for a project to move forward (large environmental projects often involve such antagonistic groups).  However, I must always remember that my success is not an agreement reached, but a real conversation completed.  If I fixate on agreement, I may not know when to quit.

Toward the beginning of my career in conflict resolution, I was asked to facilitate/mediate a group of 20 to 25 people who were at odds over a proposed major rock quarry.  There were representatives from the landowner proposing the quarry (his attorney, environmental consultants, etc.), citizens opposing the quarry (nearby landowners concerned with the potential impacts of such an operating quarry), attorneys and consultants for the citizen opponents, representatives of local and national environmental groups, local government regulators (planners, public health personnel, etc.) and anyone else who felt that he or she had an interest in whether or not the project should be approved.  The group was commissioned by local government officials (who would eventually be asked to say yea or nay to the proposal) to discover all of the issues of concern surrounding this proposal, discuss them and then, if possible, find ways to resolve as many of them as possible.  The group succeeded in the first two tasks but was largely incapable of (or unwilling to) accomplish the last.

Given the number of people involved in this “issues group” and the complexity of the proposed project, just discovering all of the issues took several meetings over a period of months.  The members of the group fell largely into two camps, supporters of the proposal and opponents (with the local government officials reserving judgment).  When agreement could not be reached on the potential impacts of each issue area, the group took several more meetings to reach agreement on a list of several experts to analyze the inputs from each side and give professional opinions.  When the experts’ reports were received by the local government officials, they largely supported the project – so the opponents then tried to disavow the entire process of selection of those experts.  So, the one area of agreement (who should give expert input on the issues surrounding the project) fell apart when implemented.

Still, discussions continued for several months, and the parties got no closer to agreement.  So, you may ask, why did the parties continue to talk, and why did I not halt the process?

My analysis is as follows:  No one at the table was interested in finding common ground.  The proponents of the project wanted it to be approved.  The opponents wanted it to be denied.  The local government staff members preferred some consensus by the group, but could not take sides.  However, to some extent, burning up time was in everyone’s interest.  The proponents wanted to give a strong impression that they were responding to the concerns of the public so that the local officials would have cover to approve the project when the time came to vote.  The opponents (as is often the case) calculated that delay was an ally.  If the project were eventually to be approved, a long negotiation process would push quarrying further into the future.  Prolonging negotiations had the added benefit of pushing the eventual decision closer to the next election.  Public officials do not like approving controversial projects just before an election.  The local government staff members did not feel that they could push the negotiations because such a stance would seem to compromise their neutrality.  Being new to the job as a facilitator paid by the County, I did not feel confident that I could shut down the process on my own initiative without penalty of some sort.

So, the discussions dragged on until everyone was simply burned out (and coincidentally, the next election day was getting nearer).  The proponents submitted the application, it went through the formal process, and, shortly before the election, it was denied.  By inaction, I had become an unwitting ally of the opponents of the project.

This brings us full circle.  When the parties had aired all of the issues, discussed them thoroughly, and clearly could not reach any real consensus, the process should have been ended – by me.  Continuing the discussions did not advance the stated goals of the process.  I now know that it the facilitator/mediator’s job to help people communicate constructively.  If they complete that process and cannot reach agreement, there is no shame in congratulating the parties on their participation and calling a halt to further pointless discussion.

As a paid neutral, it my duty to not waste the time and money of those hiring me.  Knowing when to quit is sometimes as valuable and bring the parties to an agreement.