Both parties insisted that the dispute between them be mediated by:
Finding someone who met all these criteria in a single person was difficult. Three earlier rounds of mediation with different mediators had resulted in no settlement due to the absence of one or more of these essential qualities. However, with great effort, a mediator who fulfilled all parameters was identified.
The mediator entered the room. With the middle-aged couple was a large dog—ZUMBA—seated right in the mediation room. The mediator first greeted this third party with due respect and spoke to him affectionately in Telugu. Zumba was introduced by both parties in great detail. Two belts were seen around Zumba’s neck, and each party seemed to have imaginary control over him using an independent leash. The parties were seated on either side of the table, with Zumba sitting on the table between them.
As the mediator gently engaged with the couple, focusing equally on Zumba, the dog suddenly jumped and sat next to the mediator, as though he understood every word. All the issues were discussed one by one, and the disputed matters were resolved. The couple decided to part ways but agreed on shared parenting of Zumba.
“One month with Amma ( mother), and the next month with Appa ( father) ,” they decided together.
A settlement agreement was signed by both. The husband removed one belt and was about to leave. Zumba, however, didn’t go with the wife. They reversed the trial—now the husband tried to take Zumba, but Zumba refused again. He sat beside the mediator and placed his head on the table, expressing his total disagreement with the settlement.
Both parties pleaded with the mediator to persuade and convince Zumba, since they had come to believe that Zumba listened only to the mediator.
The mediator firmly refused, stating:
“Mediation respects each party’s right to self-determination. No one, including a third party, should be influenced by the mediator.”
Zumba wagged his tail in approval, his eyes filled with tears as he conveyed his gratitude to the mediator. When either party tried to talk to him, he barked—clearly expressing his disgust. He responded only to the mediator.
Who would take Zumba?
Zumba did not agree to go with either party. However, when the mediator stepped out briefly to attend to nature’s call, Zumba silently followed her and came back with her.
There was now an impasse.
The mediator looked straight into Zumba’s eyes, trying to understand what he wanted. Then she stood up and made a request to the parties:
“May I request both of you to hold a single leash and walk Zumba around the mediation center for ten minutes?”
Zumba wagged his tail happily in approval and walked out with them. After fifteen minutes, they returned.
The mediator asked: “What do you want to do?”
Both replied. “We want to withdraw our divorce petition. As long as Zumba is alive, we’ll live together.”
The matter was settled with a single settlement term:
“Both parties have voluntarily agreed to withdraw their divorce petition as not pressed, and have agreed to live together as partners.”
Zumba gave the mediator a big hug.
Who helped resolve the dispute? ZUMBA???
The power of non-verbal communication is immense. Often, we mistakenly assume that the speaker alone is the sender of messages. More often than not, the non-speaker becomes a powerful communicator. Coding and decoding occur simultaneously within everyone. In a conversation, each individual acts as both sender and receiver at the same time.
Everything the couple understood—but did not express in words—was reflected in their final decision to withdraw from divorce. Their silent walk with Zumba included many internal dialogues, both between the couple and among all three participants. The couple understood the silent conversation between the mediator and Zumba.
Zumba’s decision not to stay with the couple when the mediator stepped out—but instead to accompany the mediator—was a powerful act of non-verbal communication. The couple interpreted this to mean that Zumba would respond only to the mediator, and not to either of them. The message was clear: Zumba would not go with just one of them.
When the mediator was speaking, the couple and Zumba were observing. For each sentence the mediator spoke, there were non-verbal responses and, at times, reactions from all three. Each one was trying to decode the non-verbal reactions of the others. The mediator was constantly observing, fully aware that she herself was also being observed.
Simultaneous decoding was taking place within the mediator. Zumba’s observation was perhaps even deeper. It is likely that Zumba understood that the couple was not yet ready for a divorce. Reflection and contemplation are intrinsic parts of observation.
Zumba clearly grasped the situation. The mediator recognized that Zumba’s seemingly competitive style of negotiation was, in reality, a collaborative one. Zumba’s barking was eventually replaced by silent withdrawal and, later, by an unconditioned willingness to give in and bring everyone together.
The couple’s initial competitive style—marked by reluctance to bend or make concessions—gradually shifted into a collaborative approach. They both realized that Zumba was non-negotiable for each of them. At the same time, for Zumba, both individuals were equally non-negotiable. Ultimately, they understood that the true substance of the negotiation was centered on what Zumba valued.
A variety of options are available to deal with workplace conflict. It is worth noting that each of the approaches is suitable in circumstances, and that the ideal is a...
By John FordALMOST ONE OF EVERY FOUR BIRTHS TODAY ARE TO UNMARRIED, COHABITATING COUPLES - National Center for Health Statistics (2010) These startling figures represent an eighty percent increase over 2002. Directly...
By Don GordonConflicts are not unknown in faith communities. Interpersonal church conflicts too often are destructive, with damaging fallout. Uninvolved leaders find themselves at a loss, being asked to choose sides or...
By Wayne Plenert
