INKOVEMA Podcast „Well through time“
#209 GddZ – Justice, sustainability and our image of mankind.
Contributions from the dynamics of conflict. Part 3.
In conversation with Prof Elisabeth Kals
Prof Dr Elisabeth KalsBorn in 1966, studied psychology at the University of Trier and the University of Reading/England; 1991 diploma in psychology; 1993 doctorate ("summa cum laude", since 2003 Professor of Social and Organisational Psychology at the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, research focus: "Responsibility, justice, values". Application of these to environmentally relevant action, action and decision-making in the context of organisations, motive analysis of voluntary social commitment, questions of justice and emotion psychology, analysis of social conflicts and resolution by means of psychological mediation. Aim and motivation of scientific work: application and provision of psychological research for practical use.
Well through time.
The podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting.
Chapter
0:16 Welcome to the podcast
3:22 Motivation for justice in mediation
7:58 Conflicts and the experience of justice
11:26 Past vs. future in conflicts
15:27 The role of sustainability
18:59 The paradigm shift towards sustainability
22:30 Intergenerational justice
23:06 Images of people and their meaning
30:08 Mediation in social conflicts
35:06 Closing words and reflection
Summary of content
In this episode of the podcast "Gut durch die Zeit", we take a deep dive into the complex topic of human images and their influence on mediation, conflict coaching and sustainable behaviour. I have the honour of speaking with Professor Elisabeth Kals from the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, an expert in this field. We will use the article from the journal Konfliktdynamik as a starting point for our discussion on the connection between human values, justice and sustainable conflict management.
We start with the fundamental questions: What are Images of people and how do they shape our Understanding justice and conflict? Mrs Kals emphasises that justice cannot be understood as a monolithic concept, but rather as a pluralistic construct, the both codified law as well as subjective experiences of justice includes. In mediation, it is important to recognise and respect these different perspectives. We specifically discuss how the experience of justice influences the dynamics of conflict and how mediators can use these insights to promote constructive dialogue.
In the further course of our conversation, we will take a look at the Sustainability and its close link to questions of justice. The shift from environmental protection to a broader concept of sustainability is analysed, in particular the multitude of conflicts of interest that go hand in hand with this. Ms Kahls and I emphasise that the ecological, economic and social dimensions of sustainability must be integrated in order to find non-violent and just solutions. We also explore how the perception of justice and fairness works in these contexts and what role mediation can play here.
A central point of the discussion is how to deal with past injustices in conflicts, especially in working groups and organisations. We address the "iceberg model" of conflict, which illustrates the idea that superficial conflicts often hide deeper, unresolved conflicts of justice. Recognising that many conflicts in the present are shaped by past experiences requires mediators to navigate carefully between the past and the future. We realise that a comprehensive reappraisal of the past is not always necessary; sometimes it is enough to focus on a shared, positive future.
In addition, we shed light on the Concept of human imageswhich not only influences individual ideas of justice, but also the basic understanding of how we as a society approach conflicts. A humanistic view of humanity promotes the idea that people are capable of taking responsibility and shaping conflicts independently. The importance of anchoring this way of thinking in mediation is discussed in order to mobilise the potential of those involved.
The episode concludes with an outlook on the challenges and opportunities that arise in mediation practice, particularly with regard to social conflicts, which are becoming increasingly relevant in today's world. We discuss examples from other countries where mediation has been successfully used to resolve social and environmental conflicts. Through these comparisons, it becomes clear that mediation is much more than a procedure; it is a method that can initiate transformation processes.
This exciting discussion will explore the complex interrelationships between people-centredness, justice, sustainability and the role of mediation in different contexts. Our aim is to promote a deeper understanding of these issues and show how mediation can be used as a tool for positive change.
Complete transcription
[0:00]And when you realise this in mediation, you don't maximise the pursuit of your own benefit, but also consider what it means for others, what it means for the community,
[0:16]
Welcome to the podcast
[0:11]then it shows that we can obviously transcend these things. Welcome to the podcast Gut durch die Zeit, the podcast about mediation, conflict coaching and organisational consulting, a podcast by INKOVEMA. I'm Sascha Weigel and I'd like to welcome you to a new episode. Today we're going to be talking about images of people, i.e. how other people imagine themselves, what they are, what makes them tick, why they act and think the way they do or even appear to act. The question of images of human beings in mediation is relevant and has given rise to a specialist article in Konfliktdynamik, a specialist journal for mediation and conflict resolution, which addresses this interdependency of images of human beings and in the article specifically for the explanation and promotion of sustainable behaviour. And to a certain extent, mediants and mediation as conflict management also want to have a sustainable impact, and that's a reason to talk about it. And I have invited a guest who is an expert in this field.
[1:24]Professor Elisabeth Kahls from the Catholic University of Eichstätt-Inkostadt. Welcome, Mrs Kahls. Thank you very much and good afternoon, Mr Weigel. Mrs Kahls, during the introduction to today's topic, which was the starting point for me to take up this article from Conflict Dynamics, I realised that it is a few steps to move from the concept of humanity and sustainability to mediation and questions of justice and intergenerational justice, because these are closely linked to the topic of sustainability. Let's approach this very slowly. Let's start with you. What do you have to do with the topic that you have been working on for years, justice?
[2:10]And what do we fundamentally need to know and consider for mediation as a process if we want to think about it? Yes, thank you for the question and also for the introduction. The field is actually quite complex. In other words, if you want to move from images of humanity, focussing on the motive of justice, through this understanding of conflicts to the resolution of conflicts, so to speak. And I always do this with a wonderful team. The first author of the article is Adrian Landwehr, who is also doing a doctorate in this field and is a certified mediator himself. That's very important for me to say. Much of what I am saying today is not an individual achievement, but is based on teamwork and is actually also based on the thoughts of my mentor and teacher Leo Montada. The question you ask about justice, what does that have to do with it at all? I think it's fair to say right from the start that it's not justice at all,
[3:22]
Motivation for justice in mediation
[3:17]but one of these guiding principles is that justice must be thought of in the plural. We have this codified law on the one hand, so to speak, and you as a lawyer are the expert.
[3:32]Thank you very much. Yes, that's true. And as a psychologist, I'm more of an expert on justice.
[3:43]The experience of justice, the subjective experience, a codified law and the experience of justice are not identical. And they meet in mediation, which is why it is such a wonderful interdisciplinary field in which it is important that representatives of the various disciplines are in dialogue with each other. And that's why I think it's so great that you and I are talking to each other today. I'll join in. First of all, I want to go back to this area or this map with the pegs. So we have sustainability and that has a lot to do with intergenerational justice and therefore with questions of justice. And yes, the law has the idea of driving justice as an idea through society and through history, so to speak, and searching for justice. We have to think about this in the plural, because the experience of justice among the people involved is different to how justice is objectively understood in legal terms. And that, I believe, is very connectable. Many people can recall experiences, memories that certain judgements, for example, do not seem fair or are something else. Does it also mean that not only the experience of justice is individually subjective, but that as an individual you also have your own idea of what is just? That would actually be the necessity in order to recognise a difference at all.
[5:11]You refer again to the topic of sustainability. It's a wonderful example because it reflects the complexity and is becoming increasingly relevant. So today it's called sustainability, whereas in the past it was called environmental protection. And if we take a look, that's where the first problem comes in. Perhaps, if we want to get into the subject, we need to look at this change in terminology. In environmental protection, the ecological pillar was the dominant one. With sustainability, other pillars of interest come into play. In other words, we have the economic pillar and the social pillar.
[5:53]And that is more open to interpretation than if we only talk about environmental protection. And at the same time, there are also clashes of interests. So the central issue is how we can harmonise the ecological pillar with the economic pillar. We all agree that both are important. But we can only really come to realisable conclusions if we use an example. In other words, when we really discuss it in a specific case.
[6:23]And it becomes clear why everyone is convinced of their own positions and says that this is a fair decision, for example where the new waste incineration plant should be built. And if I look at this through the eyes of a mediator or with the difference between court and mediation, then on the one hand I have a procedure that is in search of objectively fair justice and organises a negotiation process between relevant parties, plaintiffs, defendants and the judge as a representative of the people, in whose name the judgement is then pronounced. And in mediation, we have a process where we consciously and intentionally take these subjective experiences as a yardstick for the decision.
[7:16]That means that we as mediators don't even need to play a subjective role in justice because we are not the parties to the conflict. What is a good approach for mediators in this process, where subjective justice is important, or rather the question of whether subjective justice is at all important in mediation? Perhaps I should clarify that again first. Yes, I think there is a fairly short answer to that. In fact, the core of a conflict, I would always say,
[7:58]
Conflicts and the experience of justice
[7:53]At least in an escalated conflict, there is always a justice dimension. In other words, escalated conflicts are essentially conflicts of justice.
[8:04]And that is why it is important to understand the perception of justice of the parties involved. It's not about objective justice, it's actually not about the philosophical dimension either. How should it be, but how do people experience it? And as soon as the experience of justice is violated, as soon as something is experienced as unfair, a cold conflict becomes a hot conflict. And the mediators' task is to understand this core of the conflict.
[8:41]This means going down from the object of the conflict, which is above the metaphor of this iceberg model, into the depths of the ocean and understanding which motives are being violated. And you always arrive at motives of justice when the conflict has escalated, at least. I find that interesting because it once again highlights an aspect that, in my observation, but also sometimes in my work in business organisations or in teams and workplaces, which is very future-oriented, where we quickly and clearly make the future strong in mediation. But when you say that conflicts are essentially always also conflicts about justice, then we often have the time dimension of the past, which still has an escalating effect in the present, in the working group. We can't avoid that. If I now declare justice or violated justice as an event that has just taken place.
[9:39]Yes, I agree with you 100 per cent. A look into the past is necessary in order to really understand the current experience of injustice. And you're talking about offences, injuries. And you carry them with you, as a little rucksack. And then you're often just waiting for an occasion to get back at someone in a professional context, for example.
[10:05]And you don't understand how such a small thing can turn into such an escalated conflict. In mediation, it becomes clear because a lot has already built up and because it's now about revenge, for example, or about equalising justice. If you've got so much there, then it's my turn now and that's not said, but very often, depending on the context, it's presented with fine arguments in the sense of, here, but it makes more sense to pursue my proposed solution, but ultimately it's not about the matter, not about the solution, but about making the other person look like a loser and regaining your own power, your own ground. This brings me to the question mark that the experience also exists that parties can decide in mediation and with the mediators, do we talk about the past or do we talk about the future? And people often say, let's talk about the future. But I also mean the experience, i.e. that it's not just an escape, I don't want to look at what happened, but if we manage to realign ourselves, tackle our goal together again and then work in one direction.
[11:26]
Past vs. future in conflicts
[11:27]That every now and then, when I observe even frequently, not everything that was unclear or hurtful in the past needs to be equalised. In other words, justice needs to be restored, but an attractive, appealing image of the future, a common direction, often parties, is enough, I would now say that it is not necessary to take the diversions via the past again, would you say that there is always a risk that you can take but that remains or do you also have the experience that this can sometimes be shelved for parties without there being any compensation - yes, that depends on the respective parties and the situation I think it is important to address and address the issue. But not everything has to be dealt with. What you have just described suggests that there is still a relatively high degree of composure among the parties to the conflict, or perhaps also human greatness.
[12:36]So, sometimes this also has to do with the fact that it has put you into perspective over time or the incredibly powerful method and effectiveness of sincerely asking for forgiveness. This can then be resolved very quickly. Yes, I really made a mistake there, I'm sorry, I wouldn't have done it like that again. So when the other person then says, okay, thanks for the apology, maybe I overreacted a bit. When I look at it today, I could of course have slept on it for a night instead of shooting back like that. If there's a dialogue like that, great, then you're halfway there. Yes, that would really have created a balance, so to speak, with an apology that lands and is accepted and granted. I mean even more the phenomenon that it's like a little personal deal. If we can manage to get back on track here, then I can look past the fact that it hurt back then. That doesn't seem like a smart, if… yes, actual action to me now, does it? Is that right for those involved?
[13:49]There was a condition in your sentence. And this condition has a bit of blackmail potential. And I would be a bit careful about that. So I wouldn't like to leave it like that, but I would ask questions. There is still a lot of networking involved. Yes, the perceived injustice, which is also, let's say, not a pretence. So it's not supposed to be a tactical move because the general public says you don't do it like that. But personally, I didn't take it as hurtful at all, I mean, I was hurt, that really got to me, that really hurt. But if we manage to come to an agreement here now, then there's this little element of blackmail in it. We should take that into account as mediators, if I understand you correctly. Exactly. That is a risk.
[14:40]Because then there is always the possibility of saying at the next meeting, well, we haven't managed it so far and I would like to come back to it. What was the actual cause here? Clarification is certainly helpful, but experienced mediators and mediators realise that. You can also just let it run its course. You write it down and see when it's necessary. So you don't have to go into all the depths of past offences. But you shouldn't pass over them too quickly, because then it's only clear how the behaviour came about today and how it can be explained.
[15:17]But the degree of respect depends on the situation and the person. So the person can also make compromises with themselves.
[15:27]
The role of sustainability
[15:25]But they should know what they are compromising. So I would also like to make a plea in favour of this. We were talking about sustainability and justice earlier. And I would like to briefly raise the question again. Do you find it surprising or compelling that this topic of sustainability is now all being dealt with under the heading of justice? Or is it imperative that this issue of justice is also addressed in mediation, a process where it really only depends on the parties involved? After all, mediation has often been formulated and thought of in stark contrast to court proceedings. And it seems to me that the concept of justice draws a connection between the two that is very significant and very strong, because justice also includes the law.
[16:22]Hey, you who listen to this podcast, don't forget to rate it and give feedback. Thank you very much and now it’s on.
[16:35]In fact, that's how all my research started and how it has developed over the decades. I wrote my doctoral thesis in environmental psychology in the early 1990s, when it was nowhere near as established a field as it is today. And it was simply about commitment to protecting the environment. And that included the first questions of justice psychology. And they were highly relevant. And that has developed over the decades in such a way that I have increasingly come to the realisation that, yes, justice really is a motive in its own right, the pursuit of justice. And it is highly relevant and not just in sustainability. And that's why it's so great to be talking to you about it today, because in a way it closes the circle. But that wasn't so clear to me from the start, it has become clearer and clearer with research. And the importance of environmental psychology and sustainability research has increased exponentially with the climate crisis. And now I think, yes, it is increasingly the core and the core of justice, law and the experience of justice, that is also crystallising more and more.
[17:52]We have a slight time lag. It seems to me to be a very similar development. Because I started at the university as a research assistant in an environmental law department. That was later, in the mid-noughties. But that was exactly the time I knew from my studies, when environmental protection was the topic. And I remember that environmental law was not my core subject, not even at the chair. But how the concepts of sustainability, sustainable work, sustainable thinking and sustainable regulation became more and more important. I hadn't realised until now that this was a change in terminology. I had always thought, from an indirect distance, that it was just an aspect of environmental protection and not a change, so to speak, an extension of the basic idea that comes from environmental protection. That's why I'm very, very surprised. Yes, this is a paradigm shift and at the same time one that is also being instrumentalised a little politically.
[18:59]
The paradigm shift towards sustainability
[18:59]Sustainability is pretty much the biggest concept you can imagine. And that's because the necessary balancing of the three pillars of sustainability is not sufficiently discussed in specific cases and is now applied to all concepts and all areas of life. There is hardly a company left that does not use the term sustainability in its description on the Internet. Exactly, all food is sustainable, all conflict resolution must be sustainable, even in mediation. It's a colourful term whose dark side, if there is one, hasn't yet been fully explored. But we know this from other terms that are very colourful and then slowly cast their shadow somewhere and the dark side has not yet really been seen. So I'm also thinking of the term mediation, co-operation. I don't know, but perhaps there are already dark sides to sustainability. That would perhaps be another question for you. That's an exciting question, and we can think about it together. It's certainly a dark side when it's simply used as a fig leaf, the term. And when it covers the fact that the main point is the economic dimension. And that often happens.
[20:22]In other words, sustainable management. And then it really is about simply increasing profits. And there is no discussion about the ecological dimension. This question of justice and what we experience as fair and the question of ultimately admitting that we need to make major changes, substantial changes. It's about lifestyle changes that are necessary. It is also about doing without. And if the cost-benefit balance were always so clear, then we wouldn't have the problem of the climate crisis. There is definitely a dimension of responsibility involved, of ecological responsibility. And I would add ecological justice. This issue has not been played out like this for a long time.
[21:07]And this ecological justice, for example, also affects generations that have not even been born yet, who have no voice at all in mediation cases. We already have that problem. Or it's about geographical equalisation. I mean, mediation is designed precisely to achieve subjective justice. And then the selection of the parties involved is already a matter of conflict politics. That's where I praise the legal process, which leaves such options open in the courtroom. And I've already had a colleague here in the podcast, I can't think of her name right now, but she is focussing on future generations and making their rights stronger, so to speak, because the law now also affects future generations.
[21:55]fundamental rights and human rights and then also have their say in today's court proceedings. We actually have that in law too, so it is a development that is going in that direction. And it is necessary. But despite everything, it is also coming quite late. This problem of intergenerational injustice in relation to profits, the use of natural resources and the consequences that result from a high standard of living and job security,
[22:30]
Intergenerational justice
[22:26]Economic growth etc., these issues are not well resolved. And these are the core issues, I believe.
[22:33]Ultimately, these are even core issues that are much more important than sustainability issues relating to everyday behaviour at work. So it really is the basis of humanity that is at risk here if we continue to act as we do at the moment. This leads me to the aspect that I would like to take up at the end and which is the basis of this discussion in our specialist article,
[23:06]
Images of people and their significance
[23:05]was explicitly mentioned. Namely the concept and idea of images of human beings. In other words, that we not only form our own image of our subjective justice, but also form an image of how we see and assess other people as such, as generic beings, not as personalities. What role do images of human beings play with regard to images of human beings?
[23:31]Justice issues in mediation. Mediation only makes sense if I have an image of humanity that fits such a process, that people can tackle their conflicts on their own responsibility, i.e. develop the idea that conflicts can be shaped and are not God's will or fate.
[23:50]But what other role do images of humanity play? This humanistic view of people, which is the basis of mediation, and also my deep understanding in my own work. Exactly the keywords you mentioned. You are responsible for your own actions. You can decide, you have freedom of choice. Not only can you decide how you act and speak, but you are also responsible for what you experience and how you evaluate something. This postulate, thinking and acting in alternatives, is so difficult to realise and yet has such incredible power and can also be trained. You have now contrasted it with the idea of God giving fate. I sometimes also like to contrast it with the idea of Homo economicus. In other words, we all only pursue our own interests, our own benefit. And that is obviously not the case. But that would also be an aspect that can be seen as personal responsibility. Saying, okay, I'm responsible for my own benefit, so I'll do it. So I think it's a nice addition and it also fits in with many of the experiences or ideas that mediators and conflict parties describe. The contrast to the conflict was, of course, given as war and conflict as God, or even more harshly characterised as fate. That is true.
[25:16]And at the same time, I would add that you are not only responsible for your own benefit, but also have multiple responsibilities. So you are also responsible for your own wellbeing and we all take on a lot of responsibility for the community and for the wellbeing of others. And so do the others. And when you realise this in mediation, you don't just pursue your own benefit to the maximum, you also consider what it means for others, what it means for the community. So many people are voluntarily committed to environmental protection and sustainability.
[25:54]This shows that we can clearly transcend these things. Not just responsibility for our own benefit, but also responsibility for the common good. And that is not naïve, but based on lots and lots of data. And if I'm honest, it's also based on my own observations. When I see how committed and dedicated students are, the new generation.
[26:18]Pride for Future, the students, the students, everyone is increasingly endeavouring to think.
[26:26]What consequences does my own lifestyle have for others and question the maximum benefit or maximisation of benefit. It seems to me that the keyword justice can be used again here as a parallel thought. According to the motto, there is a justice and that is a normative concept or normatively charged and there are subjective justices, of which one may be composed, but in any case as a fact that everyone also has an understanding of justice. In law school, it was always called a gut feeling, a sense of justice. We were allowed to use that, even in law school, at least to a certain extent. And of course there are different ideas of justice and these are also in dispute. And if I now take this as a parallel to personal responsibility, I could certainly underpin this concept of personal responsibility, that some people charge this personal responsibility very ethically, socially and say, well, it's also important to me that my grandchildren look back and say, man, Sascha, he started separating his rubbish back then and we can take his example. And that then comes back to me today and I say, yes, I am responsible for myself, that I am also loved by my loved ones. And others say, well, personal responsibility means something else to me. That I'm doing well and if everyone thinks of themselves, then everyone is thought of.
[27:55]Would you say that there are these differences in the understanding of personal responsibility, that you can say, yes, that is also very subjective, but next to that there is such a thing as personal responsibility, which is normatively charged. The concept of responsibility is definitely normatively charged. And just as we have competing rights, we also have competing responsibilities. Of course we have a responsibility to protect the environment. Of course we have a responsibility for ourselves and for our own children. Is that just personal responsibility? But then you can ask, when does it end? Is it for the great-great-great-great-grandchildren? Is it just personal responsibility or is it so abstract? That it really is responsibility for the community and for future generations. And I would say that there is a subjective limit for everyone, where you can still imagine it, but at which point you also say, these are no longer my descendants, but it's you who have thought about the future. They are more independent than mine. Exactly. That's why you have to clarify what the responsibilities are. We also have responsibilities in terms of the image of Homo economicus for economic growth, of course. But there are also other responsibilities. And the line between these two points of view, or the people who are each in favour of them, has become very, very thin.
[29:22]There is little buffer in there, but actually the conciliatory part is that even those who are accused of irresponsibility, and that is what both sides are doing, if you look at it politically now, that a lot is really faded out there. In other words, accusing those who think and act more economically of irresponsibility is just as inadequate as, conversely, simply saying that the people who are so focussed on sustainability simply want to make themselves socially acceptable. They are really only concerned with their selfish motives to look good here and don't give a thought to society and social cohesion, which is at risk if you downsize the economy, in inverted commas. Exactly.
[30:08]
Mediation in social conflicts
[30:08]And that would also be such an umbrella method in the mediation process and to create a balance.
[30:14]So just being aware that there are these different responsibilities and then, of course, working with the wonderful methods of mediation, simply listening to each other, treating each other with respect, recognising that mediation implements procedural justice. It is a method that is extremely well suited to ensuring that people feel that they are treated fairly, that they feel that they belong. Another important aspect is that procedural justice is sometimes more important than the outcome.
[30:46]Exactly. Or that it can also be comforting, pacifying, if the result is negative. If you say that the result is not what I want, but the process was fair, this fair process effect. So that you then say, yes, I accept the result, for example, because it came about democratically. And I had the opportunity to have my say. Now the majority has decided that way. Then that's the way it is. That would be a wonderful way, for example, of creating a balance and overcoming strong feelings and divisions between the various political groups. I didn't want to ask the question because I know that the field is simply huge, but I do want to raise the question at the end, so that we can limit the field in terms of time, because the topic that we are currently focussing on, social conflicts in mediation, seems to me to be special compared to other conflicts that are simply very personal. It seems to me to be a particular challenge to introduce mediation instruments and mediation ideas into a social conflict, into a socio-political field of conflict.
[32:03]Customised Performances, the but never all other with address, the can one although express, but one can not think, that one many People then or all People in favour speaks. So like can Mediation elements, Mediation ideas from one good Path on one socio-political Conflict coined become? The is one influential Question. With the we, believe me, thereof benefit can, in other Countries times to look. So one more Path gone is there already Australia, where it these Methods gives, where actually Equalisers between Municipalities created become, with Help actually also from Psychologists and Psychologists, the there work at the Topic Water shortage and already for decades so that Experience have, with the Application the Method the Mediation. Here in Germany is it Yes still a lot, much smaller thought. And it gives so little Examples still in favour.
[33:01]And Mediation is much less widespread and in the Thinking the People, one the People consciously, as I at least always again mine. And then again astonished am, like very I there also in mine Bubble am. In Australia say the Data, that it much better known is. And the have Methods developed, like them the Democratic and partly also in the Legislation anchored realise can. That even the People very probably also the Feeling have, itself in the Processes screw in to can and that clarified becomes, who gets like much from the valuable Water from the River. The is for me so to speak the Note, the to pursue in one other Episode, because the seems me a really more promising Hint or one promising Direction to be, the Thoughts to pursue. But the find I highly interesting, that there so to speak Questions, the with us still very Administration-orientated approached become, like one the in one democratised Procedure then new record can and that there Mediation Experience brings along, that the also succeed can. And the changed also the Climate. The changed so deep and not the Climate, like we with each other Bypass with other conflicts. What allowed is, what the social Standards are, like escalated one Conflicts lead may, like wide man, I says it now simple times.
[34:22]In the Net about something iron may and like very we lose, simple these Possibility of first times to create. One another to listen, Understanding to develop and on these Wise Conflicts first even not so whole high escalate to leave. And Mediation is so Powerful as Method. When one only individual Elements from it to the Standard programme become could.
[34:46]To the Mediation about in Schools, then would have we one so much more peaceful Politics and also, believe me, more solution-orientated related on the Environmental policy, as we it so far have. Mrs Karls, the are the right Closing words.
[35:06]
Closing words and reflection
[35:01]Many Thanks to for the Insight and also the Complexity of the Topic. So I am me probably consciously, that the Questions at all not simple were, probably also therefore, that I itself not always exactly knew, where to leads the Question and shall them lead, but that really a Field open was and that them with much Insight in psychological Contexts, also socio-political Contexts topped up have. Many Thanks to in favour.
[35:30]Thank you You very, Mr Weigel. For me was it whole similar, whole, whole Realisation bring. And in the Dialogue, believe me, become many Things clear clearer. Everything Good and until to the next Times, says me. Many Thanks to, Mrs Kals. Sincerely Thanks to, Mr Weigel. Many Thanks to, that you again with thereby were, here at the Podcast to the Topic Conflict counselling, Mediation, Coaching. When you the please has, then leave but with pleasure a Feedback on Apple Podcast or Google Business. Recommend the Podcast more and subscribe of course, when you the still not done have. The Helps us and this Podcast continue, with this Service known to become. For the Moment adopted me with the best Wishes. Until to the next Times. Comes good through the Time. I am Sascha Weigel, yours Host from INKOVEMA, the Institute for Conflicts and Negotiation management in Leipzig and Partner for professional Mediation and Coaching training programmes.
Leave A Comment