by admin on December 31, 2007
The end of the year presents a natural opportunity to take stock. If all is likely to be well, we’re eager to take stock and celebrate the good news. If we’re not so sure, and can avoid or delay taking a careful look, we may do so.
One reason that we may be reluctant to face the fact that our business or our family is not faring as well as we would like is that we suspect that we won’t have options to improve the situation. Why look closely at the rocks ahead if we don’t know how to change course?
Various professionals can help with various challenges: a structural reorganization or buy-sell agreement can help a business. A geriatric case manager or an elder law attorney can help a family.
A mediator is a different type of professional. A mediator works with the parties involved in a challenging situation to help them reach decisions that will serve their needs. Making fundamental decisions about how a family will care for an aging parent or how a business will — or won’t — pass on to the next generation is an often essential first step before other professionals can create a plan to achieve the family’s priorities.
Knowing that there is a way to change course can empower us to look at the rocks ahead and then act while we can.
by admin on December 30, 2007
Last time I talked about the great benefit to a family that comes from creating a communications plan before one is needed and how having family together over the holidays can provide an opportunity to create that plan.
Sometimes being together over the holidays and seeing everyone face to face provides unmistakable proof that some difficult decisions need to be made, involving a family business or family member — or both. An important first step is to acknowledge explicitly that those decisions need to be made, whatever they may be. If those involved can agree to start a decision-making process (instead of engaging in denial or delay), they may keep open options that will be unavailable if they fail to take action.
by admin on December 26, 2007
“…’Tis the season to be jolly….” It’s no secret that the holidays can be a stressful time for families. Old wounds can be reopened, old grudges renewed, buried emotions reignited. People who are rarely see each other may be together for days on end.
But the holidays also present an opportunity for families.
Sometimes a family should focus simply on setting up some kind of communications plan for the future. Just having some agreed upon method for communicating can be a great benefit if communications need to be made in a crisis. Whether in a family business or in an extended family with an aging parent — or a combination of the two — thoughtful planning can avoid missteps or bruised feelings when time is critical and emotions are running high.
by admin on December 11, 2007
On December 9, 2007, the New York Times published an article titled, “No, We Don’t Want to Kiss and Make Up” by Abby Goodnough. The article explored conflicts that take the form of long-running grudges and feuds. These disputes can plague families, and business, professional, or academic rivals for decades.
The article cites the famous feud between the families of the Hatfields and the McCoys: public, violent, and lengthy. The clans fought in Appalachia in the late 1880’s about land, intermarriage, and a hog. This bitter conflict featured kidnappings, arson, murders, trials, and executions.
In 2003, eighty members of the two families signed a truce, drafted by businessman Reo Hatfield. The article quotes him as saying: “Our hostilities were based on real-life disputes over land and politics. We were both good families; we were just conflicted.”
Mr. Hatfield succinctly sums up an important concept: even “good” families can find themselves in conflict. Unfortunately, individual members of a family can find it hard to accept that they are in conflict because they believe (mistakenly) that a “good” family would never find itself in such a position. That denial leads, in turn, to an inability to take positive action to resolve the conflict. It would be better to reflect on Mr. Hatfield’s wisdom; even a McCoy could agree.
by admin 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 admin 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 admin 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 admin 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.
by admin on October 27, 2007
The water problems in the southeastern United States have started to pit one state against another on the issues surrounding the water flow of the Chattahoochee River. The governors of of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida are set to meet next week in Washington to discuss the situation.
Sadly, Georgia Governor Sunny Perdue has provided an especially pithy sound bite demonstrating that misunderstandings about mediation can reach the very highest level of decision-makers. After announcing the meeting, he continued, “frankly the time for mediation, the time for holding hands and singing Kumbaya is over, we need action in Georgia right now.”
Mediation, of course, is not about holding hands or singing. Instead, a party — whether an individual or the chief executive of a state of millions of residents — opts for mediation to resolve a conflict in a timely and cost effective manner, while getting as much of “the pie” (or, here, the water) as possible. If Gov. Perdue carefully considers Georgia’s BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement), he may find some distinctly unappealing choices. He has already stated that the current situation cannot continue indefinitely. Protracted litigation between states would be slow and expensive.
Gov. Perdue is off the mark in stating that it’s too late for mediation; in fact, it may be too late for anything else.
by admin on October 18, 2007
Today, October 18, 2007, is Conflict Resolution Day. According to the Association for Conflict Resolution, “Conflict Resolution Day is an international celebration held annually on the third Thursday in October.”
Conflict is a common occurrence in human interaction. And we are all aware of some of the common approaches to dealing with conflict, from denial to demonizing those we consider our opponents.
Mediation is an approach to resolving conflicts that allows parties to craft a process that enables them to work with a neutral mediator to reach a resolution that meets their unique needs.
For more information about Conflict Resolution Day, including a listing of some of the wide variety of events celebrating the day, visit the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Conflict Resolution Day web page.