"Reframing the issues" is a technique borrowed from family mediators. It is a way of transforming negative, "loaded" labels into positive palatable terms, to create a win-win atmosphere.
The co-parenting advocates in Washington State have already reframed the vocabulary of parenting by creating new statutes for custody and visitation which eliminate the territorial and propertied connotations of the word "custody". For example, a negotiator no longer poses the question: "Who will be awarded custody?" Instead, the issue is "What future parenting arrangements can each of us agree to so that we can continue to be involved, loving parents?" Eliminating adversarial words from the negotiating process changes the way we think about the issues, for example:
Much of the "reframing" technique that follows is evolved from Divorce Mediation: Theory and Practice, by Folberg and Mike (Guilford Press, 1980), and in particular, Chapter Five by Erickson, "The Legal Dimensions of Divorce Mediation."
Subtle reframing can be done even by the novice divorce negotiator. For example, when working out child support, a good negotiator would never say: "What amount of child support will the husband pay the wife for the children in her custody?" Reframed in the context of direct parental negotiations, that question would be: "What amount of money would each of us need to contribute to meet the basic monthly expenses or our children?" (A tip: It has been the experience of mediators that parents see the need for a transfer payment from one spouse to the other after they have reviewed each other's budgets, including a separate budget for the children. Be aware, however, in the usual adversarial process of a court case, people tend to overstate their expenses, leaving room to bargain later. In negotiations, however, personal. expenses tend to be understated).
Another example of reframing is on the maintenance issue: "What amount of maintensnce should the husband pay the wife, and for how long?". The skilled negotiator in direct spousal negotiations would reframe the question to ask: "How should we share responsibilities for the more dependent spouse to become less dependent?". Many husbands fail to realize their wives urgently want to become independent, just as strongly as they want their freedom. This approach encourages both spouses to take joint responsibility to solve this dilemma.
In the area of property distribution, the adversarial divorce question would be: "How can I obtain as much as possible for myself?" In negotiations, I suggest that clients reframe that question to: "How can we divide the property such that both our needs will be met in the future?"
Back to The Competitive Phase Menu