by admin on September 25, 2007
An article in Forbes magazine, July 23, 2007, by Alex Davidson talks about the trials of a married couple who owned and ran a business together. “Food Fight” tells the story of Lorene Reed and Larry Bearg, who bought Planet Organics, a produce delivery service, in 1997. As the article sums it up: “The business survived. The marriage didn’t.”
Two sentences stand out: “A former clinical psychologist, Larry had opened a chain of ritzy pet stores in the Bay Area with his younger brother and initially planned to stay out of the business; Lorene, a hair stylist, would deal with farmers and delivery trucks. The day after they bought the company, Lorene discovered she was pregnant with their second child.”
We can be sure that Larry knew something about human nature and situations with a potential for conflict because of his background in clinical psychology. We can guess that he knew a thing or two about the possibility of disputes in family businesses, based on his past experience running a family business with his brother. We can wonder if Larry’s knowledge about sources of conflict, and the pain it can inflict on both families and businesses, was a major factor in the initial decision that husband and wife would not be day-to-day business partners.
But then life happened, and they decided to run the business together. At times the business suffered, at times the marriage.
The lesson for conflict resolution? Even the best laid plans can run afoul of life’s twists and turns. When conflict arises, try to deal with it constructively — and sooner rather than later. If you need help, a mediator who has no stake in the outcome and no emotional baggage attached to the dispute can help.
by admin on September 17, 2007
Last week the Quinnipiac University School of Law and Yale Law School Dispute Resolution Workshop kicked off another year of bringing renowned experts in the field of conflict resolution to Connecticut. The first lecture featured an excellent presentation by Douglas Yarn and Gregory Todd Jones of Georgia State University College of Law. Under the auspices of the Consortium on Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, they are the Principal Investigators of the Nexus Project.
As they so aptly state in their description of the project: “The study of conflict resolution is a study of human behavior in a particular context; however, the biology of human behavior in this context has received little attention.” Their goal is to identify and develop the nexus between the fields of biology and conflict resolution.
Their schema describes a cycle of behavior involving trust, fairness, forgiveness, vengefulness, and, potentially, the restoration of trust through reconciliation. Although their talk at Quinnipiac allowed them to discuss the schema in more detail than their website does, the diagram of the cycle and the brief description of its features shown there give a solid sense of the framework for their research. Other pages provide additional information. Practitioners of conflict resolution and anyone else interested in why we humans behave the way we do in the context of conflict will find their research and conclusions intriguing.
by admin on September 15, 2007
During the recently completed U.S. Open, tennis fans had more than a few opportunities to see an American Express ad featuring John McEnroe. Appearing totally in character, he begins by shouting into a telephone, demanding why he (of all people) would be paying for tennis lessons, as shown on his American Express statement. The customer service representative on the other end of the call calmly explains that their dispute resolution service would look into the situation for him. McEnroe initially seems astounded that anyone would like such an amicable approach to handling a dispute. Transformed, he visits an umpire from days gone by to acknowledge that maybe a call McEnroe had disputed (presumably vehemently) was not in error after all.
What does the ad say about dispute resolution? At least two things, I would suggest.
First, most people are the polar opposites of John McEnroe: where he seemed to thrive on confrontation, most people exhibit completely different tendencies. People avoid, deny, and cave in to avoid confrontation. If forced to endure it, they certainly don’t thrive on it.
Second, context matters. When McEnroe was at his peak, his conduct on the court was unusual. He argued loudly, frequently, and intensely. That sort of behavior was not the traditional way in tennis. Some people found it very offensive.
What does the ad tell us about advertising? American Express would like to you to believe that their dispute resolution process is so good, that even someone who enjoys the fight can see the value in letting go of hostility. Imagine how happy the typical person would be.
by admin on September 8, 2007
Scam artists take advantage of desperate people, and the problems many overstretched homeowners face provide just such an opportunity. Last time, I wrote about the possibilities and challenges in using mediation to help avoid a foreclosure action, in order to serve the interests of both the homeowner and the holder of the loan. It’s important to remember, however, that an unscrupulous person or company could offer to serve as a mediator (a neutral third party) or even an advocate on behalf of the homeowner.
Whenever you choose a mediator, you should ask questions about the person’s qualifications, payment requirements, and the process the mediator uses. In the context of home foreclosures, it’s important for a homeowner to understand the basics, whether approaching the bank alone or with assistance. A good place to start is the State of Connecticut Department of Banking’s helpful article, “Avoiding Foreclosure”, on its website, www. ctgov.dob.