Use “and” instead of “but.” It’s a simple change that in conversation and writing can mean a world of difference. That difference is inherent in how we hear and read the word “but.”
“But” has a negating connotation, implying that everything that came before it isn’t true.
I think this is a valuable lesson, but it’s not revolutionary.
I think this is a valuable lesson, and it’s not revolutionary.
Which one of those sentences gives you the impression I think both things are true (which I, in fact, do believe)? Obviously the “and” changes the way we read that sentence. In fact, you only have to search Google for the phrase “and instead of but” to see that many people have shared this idea before me. It’s not revolutionary, and it remains a valuable lesson, especially for mediators and negotiators.
Frankie, a contributor on Medium (medium.com/the-place-between/we-need-to-learn-the-word-dialectic-asap-6bbbccf134b4), highlighted that the importance of making this change is rooted in the fact that two things can be true at once, even when sometimes those things seem at odds. Imagine how powerful this idea of dialectic truths can be in mediation:
I love you, but I don’t want to be married anymore.
I love you, and I don’t want to be married anymore.
The “and” makes the “I love you” seem genuine. It’s another thing that’s true despite the second truth. Now imagine how different these two sentences might be received in a divorce mediation. Just knowing the difference could significantly change the tone of a conversation.
As mediators, we are often modeling good communication for our clients, and this is another opportunity to do that. In addition, it’s often important to validate our clients’ concerns as part of effective active listening. If we, as mediators, acknowledge a concern and redirect with the word “but,” we are potentially signaling to that client that we don’t think that concern is important:
I hear that you have concerns about being equal parents, but I think it might help if we discuss the specifics of the parenting schedule.
I hear that you have concerns about being equal parents, and I think it might help if we discuss the specifics of the parenting schedule.
The first option implies that the mediator is trying to change the subject, while the second option, with only the one-word difference, suggests that the mediator believes the specifics could help address the parents’ concern. The mediator is redirecting the client to a more specific topic that might help them make progress, and at the same time validating the concern rather than dismissing it. It can both be true that the client has parenting concerns, and that addressing the schedule could alleviate some of those concerns.
This has become one of the tips and tricks we share in mediation training, and we encourage you to try it out in your personal and professional life.
If you’re interested in learning more about upcoming mediation trainings, you can view Divorce Mediation Training Associates’ information at dmtatraining.com/the-mediation-training/.
Thank you to Amy Martell of Whole Family Law & Mediation, who first brought this issue to my attention at a collaborative law training.
If you’re interested in learning more about upcoming collaborative law trainings, you can visit Massachusetts Collaborative Law Council’s information and registration page at
massclc.org/civicrm/event/info%3Fid%3D683%26reset%3D1.
Justin Kelsey is a collaborative divorce attorney and mediator, QDRO consultant and mediation trainer. He is a partner at Skylark Law & Mediation PC, Gray Jay Endeavors LLC and Divorce Mediation Training Associates. Learn more at SkylarkLaw.com, GrayJayQDROS.com or DMTAtraining.com.