So What Does Identity Theft Have to do with Dispute Resolution?

Posted on February 29, 2012 by Michael Zeytoonian
So what about identity theft? Why are we writing about it in a blog about alternative ways of resolving disputes? ..When it comes to resolving disputes, most people are also the victims of this same kind of identity theft. The choice of what to do about the dispute we are in is often being made by the mind of our litigious culture.
Posted in Collaborative Law, Collaborative Mediation, Core Values, Dispute Resolution Resources, Mediation, Respect and civility | Comments Off

One key difference between Mediation and Collaborative Law is often overlooked

Posted on February 23, 2012 by Michael Zeytoonian
“What is the difference between mediation and collaborative law (“CL”)?” It’s hard for parties in a dispute and other non-lawyers to see the differences; in fact lawyers have trouble articulating them.
Posted in Collaborative Law, Collaborative Mediation, Collaborative Processes, Mediation, Preserving Relationships | Comments Off

How would Collaborative Law determine money damages issues?

Posted on January 20, 2012 by Michael Zeytoonian
Two parties find themselves in a discrimination case and they do not want to litigate it; they want to resolve it out of court.
Posted in Business, Collaborative Law, Collaborative Mediation, Collaborative Processes, Creative Solutions, Dispute Resolution Resources, Employment Disputes, Mediation | Comments Off

What if you don’t want to litigate, but also want to guarantee closure?

Posted on January 18, 2012 by Michael Zeytoonian
You have heard about alternative dispute resolutions methods like mediation or collaborative law (CL), both of which offer you many of the advantages that litigation cannot offer you.
Posted in Collaborative Law, Collaborative Mediation, Dispute Resolution Resources, Efficient dispute resolution, Employment Disputes, Financial Considerations of Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Preserving Relationships, Sexual Harassment | Comments Off

Miracle on Mediation Street

Posted on December 22, 2011 by stevemehta

Hopefully everyone has seen the holiday classic, Miracle on 34th Street.  I thought a quote from the movie might be interesting to consider as it relates to mediation.

 

Kris Kringle: Oh, Christmas isn’t just a day, it’s a frame of mind… and that’s what’s been changing. That’s why I’m glad I’m here, maybe I can do something about it.

 

In today’s results oriented society, mediation has often been looked at as effective if it only gets results.  However, as Kris notes above, Christmas isn’t just a day, it’s a frame of mind.  The same holds true for mediation.  Mediation isn’t a day, it is a frame of mind.  It is an openness to learning new information and it is a time to be able to try to find a resolution.  Many people judge mediation’s success by the outcome at the end.  Most of the time, it is a process and the process and journey in mediation are often the most valuable part of the process.  The resolution may be a valid outcome, but it doesn’t necessarily mean it is.

Sometimes, mediation is very effective even though it didn’t resolve the case:  it can provide perspective; it can provide information; it can provide a place for reflection; and it can be a place to test resolve.

 

 

 

 

 

By Steven G. Mehta


Posted in 34th, information, Mediation, miracle, process, resolution, street, tool | Comments Off

Your Blood Pressure May Kill Your Deal

Posted on December 15, 2011 by stevemehta

Let’s face it.  During some negotiations, you may get angry at the other sideyou’re your blood pressure may go up.  The problem with that blood pressure is that it is not only bad for your heart, but it is also bad for your ability to negotiate effectively.  According to a Clemson University researcher, your ability to recognize emotional cues in is directly linked to your blood pressure.

The study by Clemson University professor James A. McCubbin reveals that people with higher blood pressure are less able to recognize angry, fearful, sad and happy faces and text passages.

“It’s like living in a world of email without smiley faces,” McCubbin said. “We put smiley faces in emails to show when we are just kidding. Otherwise some people may misinterpret our humor and get angry.”

Negotiations are complex situations that involve all types of emotions and issues.  It is critical that the negotiators are able to understand the emotional cues that may reveal the other side’s negotiating position.  In complex social situations like work settings, people rely on facial expressions and verbal emotional cues to interact with others.

“You may distrust others because you cannot read emotional meaning in their face or their verbal communications,” said McCubbin.  ”You may even take more risks because you cannot fully appraise threats in the environment.”

McCubbin refers to this phenomenon as “Emotional Dampening.”  In other words, a person has a decreased ability to understand the emotional and social cues of other people.

This research confirms anecdotal research that people do not negotiate as effectively when they are angry.  They may make rash decisions and, as this study proves, they may misinterpret critical emotional cues which can change the dynamic of the negotiation.

Take for example, the joint session in mediation.  Many times, the parties come into the joint session angry already.  They are not ready to listen to the other side.  Then they hear something that they don’t want to hear and they become even angrier.  Now everything the other person seems hostile.  Indeed, there is a saying that we judge other people by their actions, and ourselves by our intentions.  Because of the impaired emotional vision, we interpret the other person’s actions negatively.  Many times in mediation, this anger-impairment cycle can lead to disastrous consequences.

So if you feel yourself getting hot under the collar because of a negotiation, consider using tactics to calm yourself down first before continuing the negotiations.

 

McCubbin’s study, published in the journal Psychosomatic Medicine, was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Institute on Aging, both parts of the National Institutes of Health.

The journal article was co-authored by Marcellus M. Merritt of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee psychology department; John J. Sollers III if the psychological medicine department at the University of Auckland; Dr. Michele K. Evans of the Laboratory of Immunology, National Institute on Aging; Alan B. Zonderman, Laboratory of Behavioral Neuroscience, National Institute on Aging; Dr. Richard D. Lane of the psychiatry department, University of Arizona; and Julian F. Thayer of the Ohio State University psychology department.

By Steven G. Mehta


Posted in anger, blood pressure, clemson, dampening, emotion, James A. McCubbin, Mediation, negotiation, Pyschological Research and negotiations | Comments Off

Are You a Nibbler? Pay Close Attention if you Are.

Posted on December 13, 2011 by stevemehta

Are You a Nibbler?

Now I am not referring to your eating habits.  Instead, I am wondering about your negotiation tactics.  A nibble is when at the end of the deal, you ask for a little something more.  This little something generally doesn’t have huge value in relation to the entire deal.  For example, in a car sale, you might be nibbling to get the dealer to throw in the car mats.  In litigated cases, many times the negotiator asks the other side to pay certain fees such as filing costs or mediation fees.  In an appliance purchase, it might be free delivery.  Regardless of the nibble, it is creating a value for you or your client if you get it.

WARNING.  Many people just read about the nibble, but don’t pay attention to the warnings that come along with it.  The reality is in some negotiations, you may risk destroying the relationship with your negotiating partner.  The nibble might turn off the other side who may feel that your tactic is a cheap ploy designed to take advantage of them, done for the sake of trying to be a “WINNER” at the expense of the other side.

Suggestions if you nibble:

  • Don’t bite off too much
  • Don’t demand it.
  • Don’t Do it Unless you feel that the other side might have given you an opening to do so.  In other words, don’t do it out of left field and out of the blue.

Suggestions On How to counter the Nibble:

  • Nibble Back.  If the other side nibbles at you, get something in exchange
  • Use a policy of the company, business, etc, that prevents you from responding to the nibble
  • Make the ability to address the nibble too complicated, and therefore may take too long.
  • Tell the other side that you will consider it after the deal is done.

By Steven G. Mehta


Posted in Mediation, negotiation, nibble, suggestion, tactic, technique, warning | Comments Off

Let’s Make A Deal With Bubble Gum

Posted on December 9, 2011 by stevemehta

 

Want to become smarter, even if only for a little bit.  Well, I have the answer for you.  Chew some gum.

Recently a study found that people who chew gum before testing on a subject increased their cognitive function.  The study showed that the increase in brain power, however, lasted only for 15 minutes.

Interestingly, the study also found that the boost in brain power didn’t come from the sugar.  People with sugar free gum had the same increase.

One of the reasons that this is interesting for mediation is that many times, little things in mediation can result in big changes.  Second, this study demonstrates that by changing the conditions even a little, there is a change in the way people think.

Other ways that you might change the thinking patterns in mediation are:

  • Get Up and Move
  • Go Outside
  • Eat a Snack
  • Change Seats
  • Walk Around
  • Take a walk with Mediator while discussing case
  • Drink some coffee

I have, at some point in time, tried all of these things, and you would be surprised that these little changes can sometimes create a large breakthrough in the mediation.

 

By Steven G. Mehta


Posted in benefit, bubble, creative, gum, increase, Mediation, negotiation, Pyschological Research and negotiations, research, study, thinking | Comments Off

Atheists, Trustworthy or Not?

Posted on December 1, 2011 by stevemehta

 

In litigation, one of the biggest unstated principles is whether the plaintiff or defendant is trustworthy.  In other words, are they credible.  Well a new study revealed some interesting news about whether religion affects the trustworthiness of a person.

According to a new study conducted at the University of British Columbia, distrust is key factor why religious people dislike atheists. In cultures where there is a religious majority, “atheists are among the least trusted people,” says lead author Will Gervais, a doctoral student in UBC’s Dept. of Psychology.  The study, entitled Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice, evaluated 350 American adults and nearly 420 university students in Canada, posing a number of hypothetical questions and scenarios to the groups. In one study, participants found a description of an untrustworthy person to be more representative of atheists than any other group except for rapists.

The researchers concluded that religious believer’s distrust — rather than dislike or disgust — was the central motivator of prejudice against atheists, adding that these studies offer important clues on how to combat this prejudice.

The implication for such research has interesting consequences in litigation.  First, Would the religious status of a participant or witness affect the credibility of such person in the eyes of a religious lawyer, adjustor, or judge?  Second, how would a jury react if they found out that a person was an atheist?

The other issue is that there are many factors that affect credibility and trustworthiness.  Many of those factors have nothing to do with the competency of the person or the merits of the case.  Nevertheless, they are real and must be considered in evaluating cases and whether they should go to trial.

By,

Steven G. Mehta


Posted in atheist, credibility, distrust, litigation, Mediation, religious, trust, trusthworthy | Comments Off

We hear the other side’s words, but how well are we really listening?

Posted on November 29, 2011 by Michael Zeytoonian
I’ve been struck by several situations in which one party to a conversation or discussion obviously was listening to what was being said, but it was equally obvious that the listener wasn’t really hearing what was being said
Posted in Collaborative Law, Collaborative Mediation, Collaborative Processes, Dispute Resolution Advocacy, Dispute Resolution Counsel, Family Law and Divorce, Mediation | Comments Off