Mediate.com Blog Archive for October 29, 2007
|
|
Trick or Treat: Halloween links from Online Guide to Mediation (10/30/07)
Diane J. Levin
Halloween has always been one of my favorite holidays. It provides a great excuse to buy chocolate -- by the bag in fact. Plus no hours spent slaving over a hot stove, no need to shop for gifts (or wait in endless lines to return any), and no family feuds to mediate. What's not to like?It's the one holiday that I unfailingly observe here at Online Guide to Mediation. So, in keeping with tradition, here are some Halloween-related links for your reading pleasure:
Start with my posts for Halloween 2005 and 2006, "Ghost of a chance: three ways mediators can celebrate Halloween" and "High spirits: legal issues can arise on sale of haunted houses".
Bone up on "Witchcraft and the Law" with this bibliography from the LSU Law Library.
Play "Halloween Party", a board game involving "crafty negotiation" and bluffing.
Or, get philosophical with "The Story of The Devil and Daniel Webster as a Post–modern Allegory to Individualism in Negotiation". (Requires a subscription to download in PDF but cunning Googlers can access an HTML version of the article.)
Just be sure to save some 3 Musketeers bars for me.
(Photo credit: Nicolas Raymond
Don't let the Nut Run the Conflict Resolution (10/30/07)
Stephanie West Allen
In an earlier post, I mentioned a fear center in the brain and a method to facilitate its calming. That part of the brain is the amygdala. At Neurophilosophy, I learned that Dr. Joseph LeDoux, a leading expert on the amygdala and author of The Emotional Brain, has written a primer on the amygdala. The primer has much good information for those of you wishing to learn more about this part of your and your client's brain.
More about the nut reference in a moment . . .
During the seminar on Neuroscience and Conflict Resolution last week in Denver, Jeffrey Schwartz talked often about the amygdala. At one point, he became the amygdala and I interviewed him as that reactive part of the brain—a part of the brain that, during conflict resolution, we do not want to be running the show.
In beginning the interview, I asked Jeff if he wanted to be called Mr. Amygdala or Dr. Amygdala. He told us to call him simply Amyg. Who knows? Maybe in Portland next month he will be just Amy. As you may be able to guess, some fun was included in the seminar learning.
On another neuroscience note mixed with some fun, Dr. LeDoux has founded a rock group, The Amygdaloids. He calls his musical genre Heavy Mental. One of his songs is called "All In a Nut," a reference to the fact that the amygdala is shaped like an almond and its name comes from the Greek word for that nut. You can listen to previews of the Amygaloid songs here. Here's an article from The Scientist: "The Amygdaloids: Scientists who rock out." And their performance at Madison Square Garden. A longer clip of "All in a Nut" at Madison Square Garden. Here LeDoux blogs about the Amgdaloids.
Why, why, why do we feel so afraid?
Why, why, why do we feel so afraid?
Don't have to look very far
Don't get stuck in a rut
Don't go looking too hard
It's all in a nut
In your brain.-excerpt from "All in a Nut" lyrics
From Stephanie West Allen's blog on Neuroscience and conflict resolution .
Negotiation Tip: Transferring Experiences: Help or Hindrance (10/30/07)
Joshua N. Weiss
In this podcast Josh discusses the issue of transferring experiences from past negotiations to current ones. He focuses on both the dangers in doing so as well as the benefits.
From Josh Weiss's blog.
Snap Judgments (10/30/07)
Phyllis Pollack
In the October 2007 issue of the Negotiation newsletter, the unnamed author discusses “The Crucial First Five Minutes.” The theme of the article is that what we say, think and do upon meeting someone sets the course and tone of the relationship: to avoid starting off “on the wrong foot,” two common mistakes should be avoided.
The first common mistake involves making snap judgments. Whenever we meet someone, we absorb a lot of visual information and cues which we synthesize into a “profile” of that person. While in certain instances, this distillation process may serve us well, it does not do so when we are making deliberate high quality decisions. If anything, the “snap” judgment may cause us to misread the other person, and then implicitly and unconsciously to act on our misassumptions. Through our body language, we convey these misassumptions to the other party, thereby unwittingly and unknowingly cause the relationship to get off to a bad start. Consequently, we must be conscious of our implicit biases, attitudes, assumptions and avoid misjudging a new acquaintance.
The second common mistake is to be guarded when we meet someone new. Often, out of fear, we tend to be guarded and defensive rather than open and cooperative. As a result, the negotiations get off to a bad start. A better way to start off is simply to start with small talk. Rather than getting immediately down to business, chat with the other person on unrelated topics. Such conversation builds rapport and trust. Studies have found that “. . . pairs who chatted for just 10 minutes about topics unrelated to their upcoming negotiation shared more information, made fewer threats, and developed more respect and trust during talks than pairs who” got right down to business. (Id.)
As an aid to avoid this second common mistake, consider the settings for your negotiations. Where you meet the other party can be critical to the outcome. The setting itself can color or impact your judgment. While conventional wisdom states that it is always better to hold a meeting in your own office rather than the other party’s, you can gain a wealth of information by viewing your opponent’s settings. There are many visual cues available that will help you understand the other party much better and quicker. Further, by agreeing to travel, “you convey a strong attitude to make a deal.” (Id.)
In contrast, meeting in a neutral location robs both you and your opponent of the opportunity to learn each other through the myriad of visual, non-verbal cues found in all of our offices.
Another aid to avoid these mistakes is be prepared to be surprised. Try to anticipate the difficult or obvious (or not so obvious) yet critical questions. Doing this may entail some role-playing in advance in which you ask open-ended questions and actively listen to the responses.
While the above tips address the issue of one-on-one negotiations, they are equally applicable to mediations. Mediation is just another form of negotiation. Avoiding assumptions or snap judgments about other parties to the mediation and engaging in social conversation for the first few minutes to put everyone at ease, works quite well in mediations. Once you get to know a person, the “human” element becomes part of the process. It, then, becomes much easier to resolve the dispute precisely because of that “human” element.
. . . Just something to think about.
From the Blog of Phyllis G. Pollack.
Why I'm glad I don't live in Gapun (10/30/07)
Colin Rule
Damian Whitworth in today's Times of London: "Human beings argue about everything from adultery to Zionism and we do so in different styles, whether we are submissive, passive, aggressive, abusive, abusive-passive, aggressive-abusive, submissive-aggressive or submissive-passive-aggressive-abusive...
But are there any broad differences between the sexes in the way that we argue? US research into marital stress on the heart has thrown up an intriguing finding about the way some are prone to “self-silencing” during arguments. The research by Elaine D. Eaker, published in Psychosomatic Medicine, found that more men than women had a tendency to bottle up their feelings during confrontations with their partners.
Tim Smith is a psychology professor at the University of Utah, whose own research has found indications that women’s heart health is affected adversely by quarrels and men’s when they feel they are losing control. There are clear indications, he says, that it is a male tactic to withdraw from arguments. “Women, on average, are more often in the role of the managers of relationship matters. They are often in the position of bringing up and pursuing things they would like to change. This is seen in wives making a request and pursuing it and husbands withdrawing and pulling back. The more of it a couple displays the weaker their relationship future is.”
John Gray, whose Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus is one of the most successful self-help books of all time, explains this male withdrawal process thus: “To avoid confrontation Martians may retire into their caves and never come out. This is like a cold war. They refuse to talk and nothing gets resolved.” He says that it is “passive aggressive behaviour” and Martians are “afraid of confrontation and would rather lie low and avoid talking about any topics that may cause an argument”...
I particularly liked this anecdote illustrating an example of argumentation that doesn't fit the gender stereotype:
"In Gapun, a remote village on the Sepik River in Papua New Guinea, the women take a robust approach to arguing. In her pithy new book The Myth of Mars and Venus, Deborah Cameron reports an anthropologist’s account of a dispute between a husband and wife that ensued after the woman fell through a hole in the rotten floor of their home and she blamed him for shoddy workmanship. He hit her with a piece of sugar cane, an unwise move that led her to threaten to slice him up with a machete and burn the home to the ground.
At this point he deemed it prudent to leave and she launched into a kros – a traditional angry tirade directed at a husband with the intention of it being heard by everyone in the village. The fury can last for up to 45 minutes, during which time the husband is expected to keep quiet. This particular kros went along these lines: “You’re a f****** rubbish man. You hear? Your f****** prick is full of maggots. Stone balls! F****** black prick! F****** grandfather prick! You have built me a good house that I just fall down in, you get up and hit me on the arm with a piece of sugar cane! You f****** mother’s ****!”..."
I agree that culture is a much stronger predictor of argumentation behavior than gender. I also think personality type is more important than culture. To paraphrase Tolstoy, there are as many personalities as there are people, so there are are as many types of arguments as there are pairings of individuals. But while personalities bring infinite variation to arguments, the tactics people rely upon are much more categorizable.
I would still like to put together a typology of argumentation styles some day. I think it would be extremely helpful in identifying which lines of conversation move the ball forward and make a good point, and which lines are intended merely to throw up a smoke screen and obfuscate the real issues.
From Colin Rule's blog.
Aggressive First Offers and the Nash Equilibrium (10/30/07)
Victoria Pynchon
Recently, in response to my Power Point Presentation on Cognitive Biases (the one labeled Social Psychology Insights) I mentioned that aggressive first offers "anchor" the bargaining range in favor of the first offeror.
Our correspondent and resident blog expert on cognitive biases, Michael Webster of the BizOpNews Due Diligence Blog, responded as follows:
Hmm, anchoring to support aggressive opening bids? Doubtful, despite the academic literature -which in my opinion has little contact with real negotiation.
And nothing about coordination versus nash equilibrium reasoning? Big oversight, in my opinion.
Because I respect (and generally defer to) Michael's opinion, but because I disagree with him this time, I include here my response and open the discussion to our readers. To help our readers, I'd like to ask Michael, if he has the time, to provide us with his thoughts about the coordination v. nash equilibrium reasoning that is absent from my Power Point Presentation (an absence I'd like to rectify before giving this presentation on the 13th of November)
Response to Michael:
For once in my blogging-career, Michael, I'm going to differ with you but ask for help on the coordination v. Nash equilibrium reasoning.
It's difficult to "observe" the effects of anchoring and framing outside of a controlled environment. You need to have a kind of duplicate bridge experience where the bargaining partners are all negotiating the same deal to determine the effects of framing and anchoring. Research shows we'll all deny that we've been effected.
I have, however, participated in these types of role plays with "teams" of seasoned attorney negotiators.
In fact, it was the first of these experiences, on my first day of mediation training through the Straus Institute here in Malibu (at Pepperdine where the fires were yesterday -- terrible) that I experienced the power of anchoring first hand.
All twenty attorney teams negotiated a buy-sell contract for about 45-minutes. When we returned to the classroom, we all put our negotiated deals on the blackboard together with the first offer made.
I'd been taught as a young attorney NEVER to make the first offer -- folk practice where I come from, i.e., California. In the role play, without exception, the negotiator who made the first offer in the hypothetical bargaining session got the best deal -- often by many magnitudes.
THIS is the moment when I decided I wanted to return to school to learn more about this and everything else having to do with negotiation -- rules of persuasion, the effect of cognitive biases, etc.
Since that time, what I've read in the academic literature on controlled negotiation studies, not only on students but on judges and attorneys and business people, has concluded that he who makes the first offer sets the bargaining range and gets the best deal.
As to Personal Bargaining Experience.
Since I've been mediating full time, I've helped lawyers negotiate hundreds of deals. Still, it's difficult for me to say whether the first offer had a substantial anchoring effect because I don't know how the negotiation would have turned out had the other side made the first offer or if the first offer had not been more or less aggressive.
More importantly, a REAL negotiation to settle a REAL dispute is so multi-determined that I can't imagine being able to opine on which of the many factors was determinative (assuming one factor could ever be determinative) of the final deal.
Every deal in my business results from a combination of the vitality of the parties' legal and factual positions; their financial and personal or business interests; the personalities of the attorneys and the disputants; the willingness of the disputants to share information that will increase the number of options available; the negotiation and "people" skills of the mediator; and, numerous other factors that I often am never advised of, i.e., at the end of one difficult negotiation session, I learned for the first time that two of the three parties had been negotiating the sale of one of their businesses while I was negotiating the settlement of an unfair competition lawsuit.
We weren't even negotiating the same matter!
Insights?
Michael Webster's Resolution to the Shubik Dollar Auction Game (10/30/07)
Victoria Pynchon
We've had a lively discussion going about making agressive first offers, for which we are indebted to our regular readers Michael (da Game Man) Webster and mediators Chris Annunziata and Geoff (Coalface???) Sharp.
Michael provided a link to his solution to the "Shubik" Dollar Auction Game that most of us have played in mediation seminars. Because the game itself demonstrates just how irrational bargaining can be, and Michael's solution demonstrates how everyone can "win" when cooler heads prevail, I am quoting part of his post here and commending to my readers' attention the full post here.
Shubik reported [of the Dollar Auction Game described in Michael's post]:
"Experience with the game has shown that it is possible to 'sell' a dollar bill for considerably more than a dollar. A total of payments between three and five dollars is not uncommon." Possibly W. C. Fields said it best: "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it."
Without at all diminishing my respect for W.C. Fields, I venture to suggest that there is a more reasonable way to play this game as opposed to quiting. What is it?
First, lets update the game to the 21st century and restrict it to two players. Replace the $1 with $20 and each bid must be a multiple of $1. Each person must bid at least once, or they can agree not to play at all. What should they do? Suppose first bidder bids $1, and second bidder pays $2, what is the first bidder's reasonable response? Right now, as a collective they are paying $3 to get $20, or netting $17. He should demand that the second bidder pay his $9.50 not to bid! Alternatively, second bidder can offer first bidder $9.50 not to bid again.
Then the second bidder will the $20, paying $2 to the auctioneer, $9.50 to first bidder and so he nets $8.50. First bidder gets $9.50, pays $1 to auctioneer and nets $8.50, jointly getting $17.00. As I see it, $8.50 is better than nothing, giving lie to the claim that you cannot get something for nothing.
This is why I usually defer to Michael's greater wisdom. He can do the math.
Sales Calls for Mediators (10/30/07)
Dina Beach Lynch
Back in the day, when I first starting courting corporate work, getting a human resources person to take a meeting with me was tough. Just getting a live person on the phone was a miracle. Then, once I got the meeting I frequently encountered what I call stall tactics. You know, the person is interested but wants more time or isn't and doesn't know how to say no. Thankfully, I developed determination, finesse and some good strategies for managing these barriers.
If you struggle with what to say, check out this article in the New York Enterprise Report that offers a quick response to the four famous stall tactics:
- Send me something in the mail
- I don't have the budget for that (my personal favorite)
- I don't have time to meet
- Call me after ....the holidays, next month, next year
Here's what I might say to each of these roadblocks:
1. I can, but meeting allows me to really learn about your needs and create something specifically for you. Twenty minutes, 3 questions and we'll be done. Fair enough?
2. Ok, I understand that. If money was available and you knew this project could solve your problems, would you proceed with this? Great, then let's get creative on finding funding? Maybe a grant?
3. Sure, you're busy. Given what you've told me about the costs to your organization now, can this problem wait to be solved?
4. No problem. Why don't we just set up a tentative appointment now for a month from now for twenty minutes- with the proviso we'll reschedule if necessary.
Of course you can use or modify these at will. Let me know how you make out.
Try. Fail. Learn. Grow!
Dina
From the Mediation Mensch blog.
Transformative Mediation News (10/30/07)
Geoff Sharp
Clare Coburn of Melbourne's La Trobe Law School recently spoke Australia's National Radio where she explained the need of receptive listening in our relationships and within our institutions.
And you may care to read this piece on Love, Care, and the Inevitable Arguments: mediators can provide a welcome rational approach to realities of elder care.
And go here for the University of North Dakota's Jim Antes where he speaks about the role of a transformative mediator to empower parties to make decisions on their own and how mediation can impact the relationships between individuals and groups in family, corporate, and international
situations.
Finally, The Institute for the Study of Conflict Transformation's Fall Newsletter is just out.
Wait! Want fries with that?
"Two Pictures of the Future: ADR in the New Millennium" by Robert A. Baruch Bush
"Choosing to Make Choices for the Mediation Field" by Dorothy J. Della Noce
From the blog mediator blah...blah...
ADR Services (10/30/07)
Geoff Sharp
[video]
Following my tour of ADR Services' Century City office I spoke to Lucie Barron, its founder and President.
Lucie is one of the most knowledgeable hands-on experts on the business of mediation - she has a tremendous feel for her market and knows what they want from a mediator and a mediation provider... sitting in the middle between the mediator and the client she knows her job is to add value.
I have been critical of the middlemen in our industry before but talking to the mediators and Lucie it's clear that the ADR Services business model is working in the Californian context. Although she does not yet know it, I plan to ask Lucie to share some of her views on various mediation business models via this blog in the future.
Lucie was a great sport as she was not expecting me - nevertheless she sat down for coffee and did not flinch when I pulled out my camcorder.
In fact there is an Open House Celebration Thursday, November 8, 2007 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. to open the new Orange County Office.
Want to go? (he generously offers from NZ!) RSVP here
My talented IAM colleagues who work out of ADR Services in Los Angeles are;
Eleanor Barr
Max Factor
Jan Frankel Schau
Jeffrey Krivis
Stefan Mason
Eugene Moscovitch
Ralph Williams
From the blog mediator blah...blah...
Women Rainmakers — breaking the glass ceiling (10/30/07)
Kristina Haymes
Larry Bodine, a legal marketer, has a good article about what law firms can do to help women break the glass ceiling here. If you haven’t checked out Larry’s blog you can do that, here.
If you work for yourself or work at a firm that is not receptive to providing the support as per above, you will have to take the initiative and take matters into your own hands. Larry’s got some good suggestions for getting started (business development mentors, speaking opportunities, including women on pitches to clients, time devoted to biz development and money for speaking and training). And most of these tips apply to men and women equally.
The issue is, of course, relevant to women mediators, particularly those who want to mediate high end commercial disputes.
You know what they say, it takes just as much work to land a small case (client) as it does a large one, so aim high.
There is a new generation of women lawyers who understand that united we stand. Women helping other women get ahead and connecting. I am on the board of the newly revitalized New Jersey Women Lawyers Association which is full of women with this mindset.
In the past, many women thought the only way to get ahead in the legal or other old boy school arenas was to adopt a male tough guy persona and dare I say, often disparaged other women (albeit not directly). Or perhaps they were disinclined to help other women or saw them as direct competition for limited resources. Or perhaps the only way they saw to get ahead was to use their feminine wiles to partner up with a powerful male.
It’s a new day. Yes, there is still a long way to go but yes we have come a long way baby.
And becoming a rainmaker in your own right is a path to get there. Do excellent work yes! And, become a rainmaker — those who make the gold can make the rules.
As one lawyer quoted in Larry’s article stated women are good at forming relationships. Rainmaking is all about forming connections and relationships.
Staying in touch and providing service. As I am reconnecting with my former law colleagues (geez I’ve worked at 4 different law firms) and law classmates, I am having a ball.
I’m starting with the warm contacts. People that I knew and liked in connection with our prior association. Find out about what they are up to and see if there is a connection you can make for them or some way that you can help them. No pressure, just friends helping friends out.
As Ford Harding found out in his interviews with over 300 rainmakers, “you never know where the next piece of business is going to come from.” Indeed, not only can it be great fun connecting with people who have crossed your path, eventually business will come of it. The key is to provide value and be sincere. Be a helper.
Not only is the law of reciprocity invoked, it feels good. Grow your network. Women help other women.
I just found out I’ve been assigned a mentor at my new firm. Should be interesting. Be a mentor to others.
NEVER GIVE UP!
Kristina Haymes
p.s. On my to do list is following up with mediations that either are not yet converted from leads to bookings or were not yet ripe for mediation. How about you? Remember to follow up with your leads and referrals. More soon on how to follow up and how much.
From the blog Mediation Marketing Tips
What does it really take to build the dream? (10/30/07)
Kristina Haymes
It’s been awhile since I’ve blogged about inner game stuff.
You know, the game that takes place on the inside. One of my favorite subjects.
I’m sure as mediators you understand on some level that our inner world creates our outer world.
Well, what is true in one arena may be true in another.
I was recently perusing a new book called, The Girls Guide To Creating A Million Dollar Business by Susan Wilson Solovic. Don’t worry boys there’s good stuff in there for you too.
Anyway, she was mentioning what it takes to really build the dream and she said there were two qualities that every million dollar business owner had: confidence and determination.
Yes, confidence — a core belief in yourself.
I think of confidence in terms of a quiet sense of purpose. A sense of knowing who you are and an appreciation that you have been given gifts and talents and it is your job — no, it’s your duty — to use them for some greater good.
Do you understand who you are? What your natural gifts and talents are? Are you willing to work hard to turn your gifts and talents into strengths? Do you have a sense of purpose? Are you confident?
Determination is that never say die attitude. You know most successful people have had trails of failures. They have starts and stops and new starts. The road they have traveled has twisted and turned, but they were determined to do WHATEVER IT TAKES to make their dream come true.
To have this level of commitment you have to really believe in yourself (confidence) and also you have to really believe in the merit of your dream. Is working toward your objective really worth all that effort?
I think so. How about you?
Be confident, be determined.
NEVER GIVE UP!
Committed to your success,
Kristina
From the blog Mediation Marketing Tips
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.
