How to De-escalate Text & Email Communications using BIFF Response - Part I

Consider the following scenario:

A text message comes in from your co-parent. You immediately feel a change in your body. Maybe it’s that the pit in your stomach or tightness in the chest. You don’t want to open the message. You tell yourself, “I’ll open it later.” But you can’t get that unopened message out of your mind. You just know it’s going to be another issue, another argument, another conflict. And you’re so tired of the finger pointing and negative messages. You want to change how you communicate. But how?

Renowned lawyer, mediator and therapist Bill Eddy consolidated his knowledge of high conflict divorce to develop the BIFF Response. It’s a communication technique intended to help co-parents manage their relationship and reduce hostility and conflict that may arise through written communications. I’ve noticed the same principles work well for in-person communications, too.

BIFF stands for:

• Brief – Identify the core issue of the co-parent’s message. Write the shortest response possible and avoid words that will trigger defensiveness. Focus on problem-solving and responding only to the issue. Do not respond to personal attacks as this will often lead to another exchange of messages.

• Informative – Provide straightforward, factual information. If the co-parent is simply venting, you can choose to ignore the message altogether, or, depending on the situation, provide helpful information. Do not include opinions or advice UNLESS the co-parent has specifically requested it.

• Friendly – Start or end with a friendly comment, such as “I appreciate your concern” or “I hope you have a nice visit with the children”. This part may be hard, especially if you are fuming inside. If you can’t think of something friendly to say, aim to be neutral. Read your message aloud before hitting send!

• Firm – The goal of your response is to resolve the issue and end the conversation. If you need more information – be clear with your request. If are proposing an option then offer a reasonable timeframe for co-parent to response.

 Other tips:

• Do you need to respond? There is no need to respond to messages from a co-parent in these situations:

  o   They are venting or providing an opinion about you but there is no real co-parenting issue to discuss.

o   If responding is not going to change their opinion or point of view. If you responded previously and have no new information then the conversation is over.

• Timing – A prompt response is helpful but responding immediately is not always necessary or possible. Ask yourself:

o   Is the message time sensitive or urgent? Does it require an immediate response? If yes, proceed with your BIFF message.

o   Does the message require some action outside the response? If the message is not urgent and requires you to take some action, it is helpful acknowledge the message and provide a time frame for your response. This is especially true with a highly anxious or high-conflict co-parent. For example: “I am writing to acknowledge your message. I will respond within 24 hours as per our agreement regarding non-urgent issues.”

o   If you are going into a long meeting, will be driving with limited cell service, or some other situation where you are unable to respond to urgent messages, consider adjusting your phone setting to send an automatic reply that you are currently unavailable and will get back to them soon.

For more information about BIFF Responses, check out these resources:

High Conflict Institute: https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/biff-responses?rq=BIFF

How to Write a BIFF response: https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/hci-articles/how-to-write-a-biff-response

How to Respond to Angry Texts and Emails: https://www.highconflictinstitute.com/hci-articles/how-to-reply-to-angry-texts-emails-4-biff-response-examples

Top Ten Reasons to Mediate!

Here are my Top-10 Reasons to Mediate Disputes 

1.    Confidentiality – Information collected and discussed in mediation is confidential among the parties.

2.    Openness and transparency – Mediation moves the parties from hardline positions to communicating real interests (e.g. what’s behind positions such as goals, hopes, fears, concerns and wishes).

3.    Expediency – Mediators work to accommodate the parties quickly. As a result, resolutions are often achieved in a short period of time.

4.    Cost – The cost of mediation is shared by the parties. Many conflicts are resolved within 1-3 joint sessions.

5.    Autonomy – Mediation is voluntary. Only the parties decide whether or not they will resolve the dispute.

6.    Creativity – The parties are encouraged to think creatively. All proposals are considered and evaluated.

7.    Problem-focused – The parties focused their joint energy on tackling the issues – not on personal attacks.

8.    Neutrality – An external mediator doesn’t know the parties or have any stake in the outcome.

9.    Safety – The mediator works with the parties to ensure their psychological and physical safety during the process.

10. Win-win – Principled negotiation is designed to bring about consensual resolutions where both parties benefit.

What is Mediation & How does it Work?

What is Mediation?

Imagine two travelers who end up on opposite sides of a flooded river. One has the map, while the other has the food. One wants to quit and go home while the other wants to continue the journey. Each blames the other for being in this predicament. They try yelling at each other but the water is too noisy. They try throwing messages across the river but the water is too fast and the messages are carried away. Each person travels a path downriver until they reach a structure. It’s a bridge. The bridge allows the two travelers to finally connect and communicate.

A mediator is like a bridge – they are neutral and non-reactionary. They offer stability and support. They facilitate communication. They listen but do not take sides. They do not react or engage in the conflict. They assist disputing parties to focus on resolving the problem rather than attacking each other.

While many descriptions abound, I define mediation as the purposeful process of empowering individuals to resolve conflict through facilitated negotiation. By design, mediation includes several features:

-        The process is confidential.

-        Participation is voluntary.

-        The mediator is a neutral third party who guides the process.

-        The parties determine how and whether the conflict will be resolved.

How does mediation work?

First, the mediator meets separately with the disputing parties to conduct an intake. A thorough, confidential intake is important to understand the origin of the dispute, the interests of each party, and potential obstacles to resolution. The intake also assists the mediator to determine each party’s readiness and suitability for mediation.

Second, the parties then work in a joint session with the mediator to formulate the agenda, share interests, set objective criteria, develop creative options and assess proposals against the agreed upon criteria. A key aspect of mediation is to facilitate communication that is open, honest and respectful and to work toward a resolution that both parties support.

Mediated sessions generally last two hours. Many matters are resolved within one or two sessions.

Third, the mediator prepares a written report outlining the agreed upon resolution. Depending on the context, this report may be reviewed with lawyers and turned into a legally-binding document, such as a separation agreement or dissolution of a partnership. However, many parties simply chose to follow the agreement they have crafted in mediation.

Why does mediation work?

Mediation can work if both parties are committed to resolving their conflict fairly, open to creative solutions and flexible in their thinking. In short, mediation works because a solution is not imposed. Instead, the parties are empowered to negotiate the terms of the resolution agreement.

Politics and the Art of Listening to Understand

I was struck by two significant announcements yesterday.

First, federal Conservative Opposition leader Andrew Scheer announced after meeting with his caucus today that he will be embarking on a cross-country “listening tour” to hear from party members across Canada.

Second, Rod Phillips, the provincial Minister of Finance announced that the Ontario government will be changing course and walking back some of its proposed cuts. In his remarks, Phillips used the word “listening” multiple times. Phillips told reporters “We listened to Ontarians, we listened to what they thought was working well in the plan that we had, and we listened as well to the concerns that they had.”

One CBC-Radio 1 reporter referred to this kind of politics as the “politics of listening.”

Interestingly, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has indicated that he will be meeting with opposition leaders to determine whether they can find common ground after adding his own fuel to this incredibly acrimonious federal election.

Political leaders and elected politicians, across all levels of government, are elected to serve. And service, by definition, is the act of helping or doing work for someone. The most basic way to think about service is to imagine walking into a store and being asked “how can I help you?” Good service is enabled by good listening.

In this past federal election, I heard from many Canadians who didn’t feel like they were being heard nor served. Despite media and public outcry about the nastiness of the campaigns, the mudslinging continued. And, despite climate change being identified as major priority of Canadians, some of the political parties did not adjust their policies to reflect that priority.

As a mediator, it’s a refreshing change of tact to hear that politicians may now be interested in listening to the communities they serve and might actually start listening to each other. It’s also encouraging to hear that our federal minority government is obliged to negotiate areas of common interest.

A successful negotiation is fundamentally about two sides listening to one another and finding common ground.

Harvard scholar, author and international mediator William (Bill) Ury, reminds us that true listening is not about listening to prepare a reply – it’s about listening to understand. It’s also about listening from another person’s frame of reference and perspective and finding interests in common.

Ury also talks about what he calls ‘the third side’ in a negotiation. The ‘third side’ is the community which has the ability to influence the disputing parties. In the case of Canadian politics, one can argue that we, Canadians, are the third side. We have an opportunity to support collaboration by our elected leaders. We can endorse unity over division. We can and should support a listening to understand agenda.

Elissa Hines Reimer is a Waterloo-based mediator and lawyer. Prior to re-configuring her life to focus on conflict resolution, she spent seven years investigating and prosecuting international crimes in The Hague and two years as an Assistant Crown Attorney. Before that, she spent a decade in the federal public service in Ottawa building partnerships and engaging stakeholders across the country in the health research sector.