Some thoughts/opinions/judgments on these topics:
Overarching everything, I think, should be to emphasize that what works for
you, might not be what works for someone else.....what works with one
couple, might not work with another. It's about staying open to what's
needed in this particular situation....and to when things don't feel quite
'right'.... not about what IS right.
Clothes...
I believe that if I am thinking about my clothes during the meeting -
including especially what others might be thinking about them - then I'm
wearing the wrong clothes. I urge people to wear what is comfortable for
him/her. If that means someone is there in cut-offs and someone else in a
3-piece suit, so be it.
If I think someone else is 'inappropriately' dressed, that's a gift to
me to consider how I let myself be distracted by my own judgements about
what is 'right' and perhaps that I, in fact, have chosen clothes that I
don't really want to wear.
Venue.....
Distractions and 'at-easeness' are the issue. I've done 1on1 meetings
in coffee shops, but I think 4-ways can be difficult there. It's easier to
do private whispers 1on1 than it is to make certain that everyone in a group
hears everyone else. I've done 4-ways at public libraries; most have study
rooms that can be reserved for free. I've also found it a nice task to
assign to the clients; book the room.
I was a bit surprised at how 'at-ease' we all felt at a 4 way held in a
public library study room with floor to ceiling glass on 2 walls....but we
seemed to hardly notice the folks walking past.
Scheduling.....
First item on the agenda of any meeting I'm involved in is to schedule
the next several meetings. I try to get them happening on a 'regular'
basis. Every 2 to 3 weeks on the same day and at the same time. I dislike
the notion of "as needed" meetings. They seem to me to invite
"emergencies". I also like that the scheduled meetings helps to keep the
team on task between meetings.
Time of day should be a team decision. As for 'convenience', I try to
downplay that when the clients bring it up. There is nothing 'convenient'
about the divorcing process; it involves a lot of work. I remind them that
this thing will go forward at a pace determined solely by the amount/time of
work they put into it. I tend to encourage a little 'inconvenience' to the
extent moving forward is a priority for them.
I also have a personal bias that, as the paid professionals, our
'convenience' should never be a factor.
Attendance.....
Heavy biases here. And conflicted. I love technology. And love to
talk on the phone. And I think video conferencing is something to be
seriously embraced. All as tools. AND of course, what works for me might
not.....etc.
The conflict for me is that less than 10% of meaning is communicated
with the words we speak. Maybe another 35% is communicated by the tone,
etc. used in speaking those words. More than half of what we understand of
what each other is saying comes through our EYES not our ears. Those of us
who have vision need to SEE each other.
And I believe that physical proximity is essential to developing and
maintaining the trust that is necessary for the Collaborative Process. Part
of that trust flows from the apprecitation that it is "inconvenient" for
everyone to come to a meeting. And that doing what it takes to be at the
4-way is itself a powerful 'non-verbal' expression of commitment which
engenders trust.
I'm not saying 'never', but I think that tele-participation can work as
an exception but not as a regular practice. And that it would be better
done only after initial face-to-face meetings. And that it not be done for
anyone's 'convenience'; e.g., "I scheduled something right after the 4-way
and won't be able to make that if I have to drive from the 4-way" should not
be a basis for phoning in, but for canceling and making the next meeting
instead. Actually, it would be preferable if it were the basis for NOT
scheduling that other thing.
And I end as I began....I believe that 'comfort' - with ourself and with
others - is what we can best bring to the clients in the process. The
details don't make the process work; how we work the process yields the
details.
InJoy!
cMr
Collaborative PracticeChicago
Resolving Disputes Respectfully.
Divorce Without Warfare
carl Michael rossi, M.A. J.D., L.P.C.
Attorney, Mediator, Coach, Counselor
773-292-3456
<mailto:cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> cMr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<http://www.cpchicago.net/> www.CPChicago.net
-----Original Message-----
From: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of harrytindall2001
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 4:21 AM
To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [CollabLaw] Times, attire and venues for joint meetings
In attempting to schedule joint meetings our office finds difficulty
in scheduling meetings. We have resorted to use of early morning
meetings beginning at 7am and we have also resorted to evening
meetings. Is this a common experience for others? We have also
scheduled meetings on Saturday and Sunday
I have also gone back and forth on proper attire. I currently believe
that I should wear the same clothes that I would wear to court. Any
thoughts on this?
Finally, I would like to promote discussion on venue choices. Has
anyone had joint meetings at Starbucks, conference centers, in homes,
or by conference calls. On the latter, we recently had a joint meeting
where one party participated by calling in. It worked quite well.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
