by Jane Beddall on November 30, 2007
Dale Dauten’s The Corporate Curmudgeon column in the November 19, 2007 Hartford Business Journal was titled “Fomenting Mutual Respect.” In it he quotes a study that found that executives felt that some 18% of management time was wasted resolving staff personality conflicts. He went on to discuss the completely divergent reactions of two management pros: one said that too much conformity was a bad thing and more conflict was essential, the other said some of the best analytical and creative thinkers will be driven away by perpetual conflict. Dauten concludes that organizations need personality and personalities but not personality conflict.
As a mediator and someone who thinks about conflict and its causes and consequences, I would tweak that observation a bit. Personality conflicts are part of life and part of organizations — part of any setting where people are thrown together. The key is to handle conflict constructively: neither to create a situation without conflict (by assembling a group of people who are completely homogeneous and never disagree or by suppressing even healthy conflict in a diverse group) nor to create a situation where destructive conflict is the normal state of affairs.
Instead, any organization — be it a private firm, a not-for-profit company, or a family — needs to address conflict effectively. Mediation and related techniques can help.
by Jane Beddall on November 27, 2007
In a recent New York Times column, “Turkey Tune-Out Time”, Roger Cohen wrote about the case for “no e-mail Fridays.” His main point involved the overuse of technology to keep us connected to our work, to our peril. One of his comments about e-mail was especially interesting: “it’s a lousy tool for conflict resolution, a multiplier of misunderstandings.”
Few would disagree that e-mail does little to resolve conflict and that it can easily create misunderstandings. But what is it about this common, handy form of communication that leads to these results?
Cohen’s other observations provide some clues: e-mail is reactive and leads to inside-the-box thinking. Also, people”say” things that they would not say to someone’s face. And then, paradoxically, that off-hand comment that you would never deliver orally is captured forever in the receiver’s inbox.
I would add a couple of other thoughts. The statement/reaction dynamic can easily become one of demand/counterdemand. There is little, if any flexibility in such a dialogue. Second, it’s hard to capture the tone of voice and facial expressions (emoticons notwithstanding) that accompany a written statement, making it easy to jump to false — and unnecessarily negative — conclusions. Third, somehow we seem to believe that there is some greater degree of confidentiality in an e-mail message, when, in fact, your message can be instantly forwarded to a large number of people, from close friends to complete strangers, intentionally or inadvertently.
Conflict is a part of life and so is e-mail. But taking a moment to think about why e-mail and conflict are a poor combination can stop us from making a challenging situation even worse.
by Jane Beddall on November 25, 2007
Last time, I described a bit about the Wall Street Journal Family Finances article titled “Trading Dispute? Try Mediation.”
The WSJ article gave an overview of the manner in which two alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes could interface. Although the context there was brokerage account disputes, the same concepts apply to other areas where a contract may commit parties to using arbitration, instead of litigation, to resolve conflicts. As the article made clear, these mandatory arbitration clauses do not, however, prevent parties from mutually deciding that they would prefer to use mediation, instead of arbitration, to resolve their conflict.
So, why would parties choose mediation over mandatory arbitration? The WSJ article makes several points. Sometimes mediation provides a reality check: one party’s hopes and expectations may be wildly unrealistic and mediation can offer an opportunity for decision-making based on more grounded expectations. Mediation can save time: in part by relieving scheduling difficulties if a three-person arbitration panel is required and in part by requiring less time in actual sessions with the third-party neutral(s), the mediator or arbitrators. Spending less time can also mean spending less money, on legal and process fees and on time spent away from other, more productive activities.
Perhaps most important, the parties retain control of their own conflict. They decide whether to accept or reject a settlement and, in that way, control the outcome of their dispute. In arbitration, just as in litigation, the neutral third party — an arbitrator, judge, or jury — will assume control of the case and impose a decision on the parties to the dispute. In mediation, the parties work with a mediator to fashion the best solution possible, from their own perspectives, to fit their own situation.
by Jane Beddall on November 10, 2007
The Wall Street Journal recently ran a Family Finances article titled “Trading Dispute? Try Mediation.”
The article addresses head-on a couple of common questions about mediation. First, the parties to a dispute may have agreed in advance (say, in a consumer or brokerage contract) to pursue mandatory arbitration if a dispute arises during the life of the contract. These agreements have their critics. What is important for this discussion is that parties who enter into these agreements are waiving only a right to pursue a court remedy.
Second, these waivers do not affect the ability of parties in conflict to decide, at any time, that they choose to pursue mediation. The key concept is that mediation is a voluntary process: if all of the parties to a conflict decide it is in their best interests to try to work out their differences with the assistance of a neutral, trained mediator, the parties can enter into the mediation process. They are not compelled to continue with the arbitration process.
Third, if the parties can reach a mediated agreement that each party feels will resolve the conflict in a satisfactory fashion, they are free to do so. Again, the parties can end the dispute as they see fit and are not required to then appear before an arbitrator.