What's Your Angle?: Notes on Co-resolution Styles

I recently had the opportunity to do a co-resolution session with a new co-resolver. While my regular co-resolver and I would typically sit facing across the table (angled slightly to our respective disputants), this new co-resolver angled herself to entirely face her own disputant throughout the vast majority of the process.  Though it took me a second to catch on, I eventually angled myself to my disputant, mirroring her.

First, I would note the lesson this anecdote illustrates about co-resolvers naturally reading and reacting to each other, coordinating their actions organically through their mutual commitment to positive dispute resolution, which is protected by their ongoing relationship.  When one co-resolver presents an idea, the other co-resolver should naturally respond with a counter-point.  When one co-resolver applauds something from the other side, the other co-resolver will feel like returning the compliment.  This is basic reciprocity and empathy at work (and disputants will begin to model this behavior through the empathy/connection that develops between co-resolver and disputant).

But this interaction led me to further consider different approaches to body language at the co-resolution table.  Under the first approach, both co-resolvers and disputants sit facing the opposing side across the table.  Under the second approach, the parties are somewhat angled across the table and each co-resolver is turned fully toward his or her assigned disputant.

Both approaches present valid benefits and each will be appropriate for certain cases or preferred by certain co-resolver teams.  I do not mean to endorse one over the other, but I will compare the two.

The first approach seems to match how advocates sit at the negotiation table, focusing more attention on interacting with the other side.  Under this model, each co-resolver will focus on gleaning specific information from their party in caucus and otherwise learn about the situation through the interaction between the parties.  Each party should feel as though their co-resolver is their teammate, at their side in the dispute.  The co-resolvers will use this position to lead or follow their party in the interaction, modeling behavior, reacting to statements from the other side, and turning to or caucusing with their party when they need to internalize and digest input from the other side.  This approach may be better when the parties know what they want and need to negotiate with each other.

Meanwhile, the second approach matches how coaches or mediators sit at the table, focusing more on the party/parties they are assisting.  Under this model, each co-resolver is turned entirely towards their own party, focusing visual attention on their experience while aiming their ears across the table.  This approach reflects the trust between negotiators that is possible in co-resolution--each co-resolver can, in effect, turn their back on the other.  It also reflects the chemistry between negotiators that is possible in co-resolution--each co-resolver can listen to familiar cues from the other co-resolver to maintain a handle on the interaction while fully observing their own party.  Overall, each party should feel as though their co-resolver is their personal coach or cheerleader (man, I am hot on the sports metaphors on this aspect of the analysis--teammate vs. coach/cheerleader).  This approach may be better when the parties need to do a good deal of inward reflection and decision-making.

Certain co-resolver teams may prefer one or the other of these as a starting point, but any co-resolution will involve some measure of facing the other side and some measure of facing assigned parties.  Based on the type of case, particular situation of the dispute, or personality/culture of the people involved, these two approaches will likely be used on a continuum.  However, the ideal approach may be to use both--both co-resolvers turning to face the other side when the parties are negotiating/interacting and both co-resolvers turning to face their own parties when it is time to make decisions or digest the situation.