Mediation Failures to be Blamed on Chairs

by Jeff Thompson

May 2011

- Print
- Email
-Comment
-Subscribe (free)

Next time your fantastic mediation skills failed to guide your parties to settlement (hey that’s the only sign of success right?), it might be the chair’s fault. Yes, I said chair, as in the things we sit on. Research has shown that the harder the chair is the person is sitting on correlates with a tougher stance towards negotiating.

It might not be a surprise to the readers of my blog that I have an interest in nonverbal communication. What used to be my meditation room is now fully stacked with numerous research textbooks, printouts from journals, and other research related materials on nonverbal communication. The chair research does not come from one of those publications whose enjoyment in reading them is usually limited to research addicts like me, but rather USA Today.

Back to the chair and how you can now blame it if your mediations are not ending with handshakes, high-fives, and signatures on agreement documents. Actually, you are to blame as something you must be mindful of in your preparations is a critical nonverbal element- the environment which includes chair selection.

Environment is the “E” in the acronym METTA, which is something I created to help people, mediators and conflict resolution professional in particular, be aware all the various nonverbal elements involved in an interaction. I find by creating acronyms it makes it easier to retain information. Perhaps this is do to my paramilitary training in the police department where it seems like there is an acronym for everything.

The full list of elements in METTA include:

M- Movement: This includes body language and gestures

E- Environment: The room arrangement and choice of location

T- Tone: Yes, the old saying “it’s not what you say but how you say it,” is very important

T- Touch: For mediation purposes, this deals primarily with handshakes

A- Appearance: What you wear does matter (really)

Back to the “environment” and specifically chairs. How you, as the mediator, arrange the room is important as it can have a substantial impact and often on a subconscious level on the style and approach the parties will negotiate. Research has validated this and as I have mentioned in the opening paragraph, it even applies to the type of chairs people are sitting in.

The research study, conducted by Joshua M. Ackerman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, involved an experiment of 86 people taking part in a negotiation over a car priced at $16,500. The difference between the people negotiating were they were either sitting on a hard wooden chair, or a soft padded chair.

Those seated in the hard wooden chair were stricter in their negotiating tactics by raising their offered price by $896.50 while those in the soft chairs were willing to go up to an extra $1,243.60.

Of course there are many different way to interpret this and come to the conclusion that there must have been other factors involved, possibly include the person’s predisposition to negotiation. To use “mediator-speak” yes, that can be true and this study’s implications should not be brushed off. For example, other research has shown how not only our emotions are displayed through our body language but it also works in the reverse direction.

Think about your selection of chairs and if they do not have an armrest for people to rest their arms on. The people are more likely then to cross them over their abdomen or chest. This closed off position can create a closed mindset and thus make negotiating and being open to the other side’s offers limited.

The environment and room arrangement should be something every mediator should include as part of their preparation for each case. The table choice, if using one at all; chair selection; position of the chairs; and even the choice of location are just a few of the nonverbal communication elements which might seem insignificant when discerned in isolation, but looking at mediation as a gestalt, it has important implications on the process and the possible results.

Although now you can blame the chair for lack of settlement, ultimately the blame lies with you in choosing it.

See: Randolph E. Schmid, “Study: how things feel effects what people do,” USA Today, June 24, 2010, accessed Feb. 23, 2011 (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2010-06-24-how-things-feel_N.htm).

Biography

Jeff Thompson is a certified international mediator. He is also a law enforcement detective in New York. His law enforcement role include a being a communication and conflict specialist, interfaith dialogue, developing and implementing community engagement programs, and designing training workshops.

Jeff is currently a PhD candidate researching nonverbal communication and mediation at Griffith University Law School. He also received his MS in Negotiation and Dispute Resolution from the Creighton University School of Law. Jeff has presented and trained on the topic of conflict, mediation, communication and nonverbal communication internationally and has been published and featured with numerous international media organizations. He currently writes also at PsychologyToday.com.

(All posts by Jeff Thompson represent his personal reflections and opinions as a mediator and not that of any organization.)

Email Author
Website: www.EnjoyMediation.com

Additional articles by Jeff Thompson

Comments

Free subscription to comments on this article

Add Brief Comment

Susan , Houston Tx

10/24/12

You are so right! Just had a mediation yesterday. Office was decorated in "preschool pumpkins and candy corn, spiders and witches on brooms". Just by the feeling I had in the room, I could tell that this was not the person to take care of my case at all. I think she took more time decorating the room than she did on the mediation. Thanks for validation.

Add New Comment

Jeff , NYC NY

05/14/11

One of Many Elements

Michael, I don't think the chairs, like many other nonverbal elements, are the sole contributor but rather one of many factors. I think hard chairs, like other external elements, have a direct affect on us emotional and cognitively. An uncomfortable chair can reduce us from being well, comfortable. Lack of comfort can increase agitation and change our negotiating style. Another research had a person give a presentation to a group of people. half of the audience were told to have their hands relax comfortably at their side. The other half had their arms crossed at their chest. The result- the group with their arms crossed had more negative views on the speaker compared to the other group. Other examples include seating layout, posture, eye contact, and body orientation.

Add New Comment

michael , Toronto On

michael@franchise-info.ca 05/06/11

Being Hard

Well, why are hard chairs priming people to hard on each other instead of the problem at hand?

Add New Comment

Jeff Thompson, NYC NY

Jeff.Thompson@Griffith.edu.au 05/05/11

Yes!

Peg, Great comment and thanks for sharing. One thing I often point out is how subtle many of these nonverbal elements and because of their subtle and subconscious nature, people will discount their importance. This is fine, but for us as mediators (professionals and communication experts), I think it is important for us to be aware of these elements.

Add New Comment

Peg Nichols, Olathe KS

pegnichols@gmail.com 05/03/11

chairs

What you say is all too true. Most of my mediation experiences were in a courthouse setting where we took whatever room was available and had little opportunity to even view the space in advance. I once did a mediation in a small room that had about a dozen chairs around the wall. Naturally, the parties, who reached the room before I did, chose chairs about as far apart as they could get. I laid my papers on a desk pushed against the wall. I myself felt very uncomfortable. I reached the conclusion that there would be no agreement. We had an unexpected interruption, and both parties were gone from the room at the same time. Party A, however, had left her jacket across the back of her chair. Party B was the first to return, and when he sat down, he did not return to where he had been sitting, but instead sat next to the chair with the jacket hanging on the back, in other words, when Party A returned, they would be sitting next to each other. I was astounded. When Party A returned, she looked surprised at the proximity of Party B, but she sat down anyway. Party B began making conciliatory offers, and soon they had reached an agreement. Was I surprised!

Add New Comment

The views expressed by authors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Resourceful Internet Solutions, Inc., Mediate.com or of reviewing editors.