Changing The ‘Choice Architecture’ Around Mediation Is The Key
|
From the CMP Resolution Blog of John Crawley, Lesley Allport and Katherine Graham. November 2010 |
In a recent book ‘Nudge’, Thaler and Sunstein argue persuasively that we are all potentially ‘choice architects’ – ‘we have responsibility for organising the context in which people take decisions’. Like more traditional forms of architecture there is no such thing as ‘neutral’ design. What we do, particularly if we are in a position of influence, will influence the choices people make. The opposite poles of the choice architecture are compulsion and free choice. Compulsion - mandating people to do things, often with punitive consequences if they default, is founded on the idea that people may behave badly if not directed to do otherwise, and that people do not know what’s best for them and others. The opposite is behind the free choice approach.
Governments, peoples, faiths and tribes have over the centuries fruitlessly positioned themselves at either pole and much conflict has consequently ensued. The compulsory / voluntary debate about mediation reflects these poles and all the value differences they embody. There is much evidence to suggest mediation works, but the general public and many private and public institutions remain to be convinced. The voluntary / compulsory debate has split opinion within the mediation community for the twenty plus years I have been in the profession. I respect the energy and eloquence on both sides but this debate has had no discernable impact on the choices potential parties make about mediation.
Thaler and Sunstein have the answer I think. They believe and give persuasive research evidence to suggest more impact would be achieved by a hybrid approach which they call ‘libertarian paternalism’ – ‘we argue for self-conscious efforts... to steer people’s choices in directions which will improve their lives... to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves.’ This involves ‘nudges’ – ‘any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way without forbidding any options... Nudges are not mandates.’ Positioning mediation more plainly and attractively where people can see and sample it is a ‘nudge’ – making it compulsory is not. John Crawley is the Founder and Chair of CMP Resolutions and has been working in organisations who are experiencing conflict for the last 20 years. He has acquired a unique range of conflict narratives illustrating what works and what does not. John developed and utilised the model of Constructive Conflict Management encouraging people at work to handle differences early. This model also advocated a range of dispute resolution processes including mediation and arbitration. In 1989 John set up Conflict Management Plus (now CMP Resolutions) the first holistic conflict management services and training provider in the UK. CMP specializes in developing emotional and psychological capital around conflict, so that people will have greater resources should conflicts resurface in the future. In 2002 John developed Interactive Mediation™ with Katherine Graham launched in Mediation for Managers (since published in Holland, Thailand, the US, China and Russia.) John was subject expert on a BBC worldwide video on this subject, and has trained over 3000 people in conflict management and mediation skills in the last 20 years. He has been imbedded as a conflict management practitioner in varied organizations including the Prison Service, Banks, Armed Services, Airlines, Government Agencies, Police Services, Insurance companies, Medical services, Health Providers and Charities.
In my next series of blogs I will suggest a number of ‘nudges’ which would significantly change the choice architecture around mediation. These will ultimately be published in a White Paper.
Biography
Comments
Free subscription to comments on this article
Add Brief Comment