I’ve heard people who are in a business or employment dispute often lament: “I’m stuck in this dispute, and now we’ll have to litigate; I have no options.” If you take nothing else from this post, know this: They are usually wrong about this. This is like when a retail sales person gives you the [...]
The post To resolve a dispute, the first step is to assess your options appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.
Recently, I have been conducting some research on what items surrounding a person say about that person’s personality and then I was delighted to see a fascinating study on a related issue addressing people’s likes from Facebook. In essence, the study research what predictive information can be gleened from a person’s “like” of something.
The researchers only evaluated items that had “likes” from more than 100 people. The researchers used data from over 58,000 people as subjects. The results were fascinating.
For example, likes of Sarah Palin, Indiana Jones, Swimming, and Pride and Prejudice were most predictive of the personality trait that the person was satisfied with life. On the other hand, if the person liked “Gorillaz” “Hawthorne Heights” or Stewie Griffin, they were likely to be disatisfied. In addition, if a person liked “Foursquare” or “Kaplan University”, they were more likely to be conscientious and well organized. On the other hand, if they liked “Wes Anderson,” “Anime,” or “Join if Ur Fat,” then the person was more likely to be spontaneous.
Another way of looking at the likes would be in conjuction with each other. If a person liked “The Godfather,” “Pride and Prejudice,” “Plato,” and “Cheerleading,” that person would most likely be a high IQ, satisfied, liberal/artistic and extraverted person.
The ramifications of this research are vast. This could be used in jury selection, in interrogation, and job interviews to say the least.
If you would like to know your own personality, you can test it at http://www.youarewhatyoulike.com
By Steven G. Mehta
“NEXT TIME YOU find yourself in a negotiation, don’t just throw out a round number. In a series of experiments, researchers from Columbia University found that offering a precise number—e.g., $4,925 compared to $5,000—resulted in a significantly more deferential counteroffer, due to the perception that a precise opening offer was more reasoned and informed.”
Mason, M. et al., “Precise Offers Are Potent Anchors: Conciliatory Counteroffers and Attributions of Knowledge in Negotiations,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (forthcoming).
source: http://bostonglobe.com/ideas/2013/03/16/jihad-career-strategy/wAjvqSVRWDysHbGMmmX40N/story.html
The question that i would ask, is what is the best time to do such an offer. I would suggest that making a final offer or close to final offer with such precision is much more effective in the litigation context than the early offers. However, in much of the real world negotiations outside of litigation, having such an offer from the outset might give more credibility to the other side really thinking about why you made the offer so specific.
You can’t go anywhere without someone texting you today. For some, text messages are the preferred source of communications. But how accurate are texts and can we rely on this form of communication?
The reality is that text message, while efficient, is a very flawed method of communicating. According to longstanding research by Mehrabian, 93% of communication is lost if you are just relying on the words themselves – which is exclusively the realm of texts. Moreover, when people communicate in short bursts, it is easier to misunderstand the meaning of the text than in other forms of written communication that is longer. Indeed, according to researchers Kato and Akahori in 2005, the smaller the amount of emotional content in a text message led to an increased amount of anxiety and frustration in the reciever’s reaction.
According to recent research, by David Xu, assistant professor in the W. Frank Barton School of Business at Wichita State University, text messaging also leads to a greater likelihood of people lying in the text message. Dr. Xu found that subjects who communicated via text messages were 95 percent more likely to lie or decieve than if they had interacted via video, 31 percent more likely to report deception when compared to face-to-face, and 18 percent more likely if the interaction was via audio chat.
Xu said this kind of research has implications for consumers to avoid problems such as online fraud, and for businesses looking to promote trust and build a good image, Xu said.
This also has implications for negotiations. It is important to make sure that important negotiations are not conducted over text but instead through other methods. Indeed, many negotiations require subtle clues to be interpreted. Those interprations cannot occur through text messages.
It is also important to note that one benefit, however, of texting is for socially anxious people. For those people who are afraid of a face to face interaction, texting is beneficial. Indeed, research has shown that texting reduces the anxiety levels of persons who have difficulty communicating face to face.
Research Source: Wichita State University (2012, January 26). People lie more when texting, study finds.ScienceDaily. Retrieved March 11, 2013, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120125131120.htm
By Steven G. Mehta
Two recent Boston Globe stories (2 21 13) stood out for their common theme – that of laying blame and finding fault. One article entitled “Not Without Blame” apportioned blame for what happened to the 2012 Red Sox. The other story was about the latest fiscal battle between House Republicans and President Obama. The article [...]
The post Replacing the “Blame Game” with a “New Game Plan” appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.
By Steven G. Mehta,
It is very common in mediation and negotiation for parties to want to vent their anger, frustration, or angst. However, according to several participants who are on the listening end of such venting, there is only so much venting that they can take or accept without feeling like they have to say something in response. This post discusses a few techniques to primarily be able to re-start the conversation from your perspective.
First, be careful to cut short a session when a person feels that they need to vent. Sometimes, your perception of time is different than the other person’s. Don’t simply judge the time to interrupt as being the one when the other person repeats themselves. Sometimes, repeating a concept out loud is part of the process of venting and allows the person to digest their own feelings by expressing them again. In fact, many times, the person’s own feelings may surprise himself or herself. In this situation, it is better to err on the side of allowing too much, rather than too little venting.
Second, if you feel like you have to interject a comment, be careful not to be defensive about your position. Many people have the tendency to simply wait to present their position and come across as sounding defensive about their position, rather than actually wanting to hear the other perspective.
Third, when you do interject or interrupt, be careful in how you do it. With some people, you may feel like that there is no right time, because they constantly have an uninterrupted flow of words that cannot be broken. In those occasions, try the following as suggested by Linda Sapadin, Ph.D in the World of Psychology. She provides 8 tips on how to interrupt. Here are a few:
“That’s some story. But now I’d like to talk about something more upbeat.”
“I need to interrupt you. I want to tell you what happened to me yesterday.”
“Jen, I get what you’re saying; it happened to me too.”
“Jared, I only have another minute to chat.”
These concepts. can be helpful in mediations or in negotiations.
Choosing the wrong dispute resolution process may very well prevent the parties from achieving their goals and satisfying their interests.
The post Do parties in a dispute want Settlement or Resolution? appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.
What typically happens to a person who is in a dispute and wants to “get his/her day in court”? Much of my practice is either representing employers or employees in employment disputes or mediating employment disputes. The first call from an upset employee usually goes something like this: “I have been terminated/demoted/not promoted/discriminated against/harassed by [...]
The post What does “Getting My Day in Court” mean, really? appeared first on Dispute Resolution Counsel.
So you want persuade the other side or the mediator? Well use more adjectives and you will be amazing in your power of persuasion according to new research.
According to some researchers of neuromarketing, “the authors of the study believe that adjectives that are sensory in nature are more impactful and memorable.
Of course, even if you buy their sampling technique, what makes books sell better doesn’t automatically translate into more persuasive ad copy or sales letters. Still, there’s evidence that adjectives boost restaurant sales when used on menus, and that sensory adjectives light up our brains even when used metaphorically.
The consistent factor in all of this is that adjectives can’t be bland filler – they should be vivid, sensory and specific. They should engage our imagination.” (http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/adjectives-drive-book-sales.htm)
The Message for your mediation statement and message: Use evocative, vivid and specific adjectives to present your position. Especially, if you are trying to convince the other side. Just as in trial, consider using your five senses as a guide to persuasion. Try to present your material evoking images and impressions from each of the five senses.
By Steven G. Mehta
Touch is a powerful force in any social interaction. There is much research to demonstrate the beneficial effect of touch. For example, several studies have found that touch can help bond, increase tips, and develop a connection between others. However, recent research has demonstrated that in a competitive situation, touch can be considered negative and may be considered as a way of exerting dominance.
Take for example in the recent election cycle. After Mitt Romney’s son made the comment about wanting to take a swing at Obama, Romney’s son then tried to exert dominance in the third debate by patting President Obama on the back. President Obama then responded by touching Romney’s son at the end on the back. Politicians are very astute in their knowledge of touch and constantly jockey to get the last “touch.”
Recently, researchers have proven this exact point. Jeroen Camps and his colleagues had 74 student participants perform a maze challenge in a race against a partner. The race was a competition. In some of the experiment, the partner patted the losing subject on the shoulder three times, smiled and wished them good luck on the next one. The control group didn’t have the touching of the shoulder. Next the subjects entered into a game that required cooperation — the Dictator Game.
The revealing finding was that participants who’d been patted on the shoulder shared…[less] with their partner, suggesting that touch can backfire when it’s performed in a competitive context, perhaps because it’s interpreted as a gesture of dominance. Interestingly, there was no link between participants’ awareness of whether they’d been touched and their sharing behaviour; participants who remembered the touch rated it as neutral; and the partner wasn’t rated as more unpleasant in the touch condition. All of which suggests the adverse effect of touch on later cooperation was probably non-conscious.
A second study was similar but this time participants and their partner…either competed against each other on a puzzle or they cooperated. Again, afterwards, the partner wished them luck, smiled, and either did or didn’t pat them on the shoulder at the end, before they both moved to another room to play the dictator game. The results were clear – in a competitive context, touched participants subsequently shared fewer movie-prize credits with their partner, compared with those participants who weren’t touched. By contrast, in the cooperative context, touched participants went on to be more generous with their partner, as compared with participants who weren’t touched. (Camps, J., Tuteleers, C., Stouten, J., and Nelissen, J. (2012). A situational touch: How touch affects people’s decision behaviour. Social Influence, 1-14 DOI:10.1080/15534510.2012.719479; BPS Digest)
“Despite what some people might think, touching someone else may thus not always have desirable social consequences,” the researchers said. “A simple tap on the shoulder, even with the best intent, will do nothing but harm when used in the wrong place at the wrong time.”
The ramifications for touch can be significant in negotiations and mediation. You have to be careful to think about whether you are in a competitive negotiation or cooperative process. Many negotiations in the litigation context can be extremely competitive and win-lose zero sum game. On the other hand, if you are negotiating a joint venture in a cooperative setting or assisting as a mediator, touch might be beneficial. The importance of this research is that you must be careful to analyze the situation before first engaging in touch. Then consider what the effect might be on the other and how they might interpret that touch.
By Steven G. Mehta
