Gini Nelson’s Engaging Conflicts

This is part of on ongoing series reviewing Robert Cialdini’s new book, Yes! 50 Scientifically Proven Ways to be Persuasive. I write more about the series on the page called “Ways to Be Persuasive”. The book lists 50 strategies, and I will be reviewing each. Of course I’m not the first or only mediation blogger to write about this book! Nancy Hudgins, a San Francisco attorney-mediator and blogger posted about the book here.

Way to Be Persuasive #1.
How can inconveniencing your audience increase your persuasiveness?

This is my shorthand note to myself for this chapter: Bandwagon and social proof. Join countless others in doing this; if operators are busy, please call again. Inconvenience demonstrates social proof of “others are doing this.”

People’s ability to understand what affects their behavior is surprisingly poor. When they are not sure what to do, they tend to look around to see what other people like themselves are doing to guide their own decisions and actions. Concerning call centers, the thought process can go like this: If you get through immediately, are too few others calling in? If you have to wait [note: but not too much], doesn’t that mean lots of other people think it’s a good idea to call? Another example: hotel guests asked to help the environment by recycling their towels did increase towel recycling, but hotel guests told that the majority of other guests recycled their towels increased towel recycling even more.

Back in April I posted Part One of a series on use of the MBTI in professional practices (and personal life). I expanded greatly on it in an article just published in the ABA’s Law Trends & News. This newsletter is introduced by its editor thusly:

Below is the third issue of Law Trends for the 2007–08 bar year. As always, this is a very exciting issue, and I am very happy to present it to you. As with prior issues, this e-newsletter includes articles, checklists, and other valuable practice information and practical tips, all from each of our substantive practice areas in the General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division. This issue also highlights some emerging areas, some interesting checklists, and much more.

While this is written explicitly for lawyers, whether mediators or not, the same principles apply to mediators who are not attorneys, in terms of the value of applying its principles. I believe strongly that mediators who are not attorneys will have statistically relevant differences in their type characteristics from attorneys, so if you are not an attorney, please keep that in mind in reading the statistics about type in lawyers. Read more »

If you did not see it at the time, it is well worth viewing Randy Pausch’s “last lecture”. He died last Friday, July 25, 2008.

I thought I had posted about it at the time, when the YouTube film circulated, but I do not find it in the Engaging Conflicts archives. I think I have “technical difficulties” about embedding YouTube videos, and never got around to fixing the problem.
Here’s the link to the YouTube, which is introduced this way:

Carnegie Mellon Professor Randy Pausch (Oct. 23, 1960 - July 25, 2008) gave his last lecture at the university Sept. 18, 2007, before a packed McConomy Auditorium. In his moving presentation …

Here’s a link to the article announcing his death [New York Times (free subscription might be required)]; and here’s a Flickr site set up by his friends.
To give you a small sense of the man — I laughed out loud several times during the talk at his humor — here are some quotes from his lecture:

“My dad said, if there’s an elephant in the room, introduce him!” [about the fact that he was recently diagnosed with fast-killing pancreatic cancer]

“We cannot change the cards we are dealt; just how we play the hand. If I don’t seem as depressed and morose as I should be, sorry to disappoint you!”

Truly, it was and is an inspiring talk about living, about attaining and helping others to attain childhood dreams, and about what’s important in life.

My condolences to his family and friends; my gratitude to have benefited some small piece from his personal generosity and courage.

I posted here announcing the premier edition of my column at the work-life online magazine The Complete Lawyer, distributed to some 300,000 attorneys nation-wide. The column is co-written with Vickie Pynchon, Diane Levin, and Stephanie West Allen.

The theme of this issue of The Complete Lawyer (Vol. 4, No. 4) is “What’s Your Exit Strategy?”Here’s the newest installment of “The Human Factor,” what we have learned from mediation and negotiation that can have very broad application in your life and work.

Here’s the link to the previous column on how we came to be mediators.

This just announced (well, last night) by ChangeThis:

Beginning [today, July 25], and running through August 4th, Farrar, Straus and Giroux and Macmillan Audio will be offering the audio edition of Thomas Friedman’s THE WORLD IS FLAT for free. Listeners will receive the audiobook in three easy-to-download sections, and soon after that, as an added bonus, will also receive an exclusive prepublication audio excerpt of Friedman’s HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED: WHY WE NEED A GREEN REVOLUTION AND HOW IT CAN RENEW AMERICA. The book itself will be released by Farrar, Straus and Giroux on September 8th.

Jeff Seroy, Senior Vice President of marketing and publicity at FSG, said the purpose of this audio giveaway is to “celebrate Friedman’s enormous influence on our lives and times. And in preparation for the release of his new book, a green manifesto and a continuation in many ways of his thinking in THE WORLD IS FLAT, we want to enable anyone who hasn’t already read THE WORLD IS FLAT to catch up with Friedman’s argument and vision for the future.”

If you’d like to receive these free audio downloads, sign up at the address below:

http://www.thomaslfriedman.com/giveaway

Enjoy!

This concludes Mary Greenwood’s series based on an excerpt from Chapter 9, How To Mediate Like A Pro, published February 2008. Here are the links to Parts One, Two, and Three.

As her bio states:

Mary Greenwood is an attorney, Mediator and Author of award-winning book, How To Negotiate Like A Pro: 41 Rules for Resolving Disputes and her most recent book is How To Mediate Like A Pro:42 Rules for Mediating Disputes.She lives in Miami Beach, Florida. Her website is www.marygreenwood.com and her email address is howtomediate@aol.com

How To Talk Like A Mediator

One of the hardest jobs of a mediator is to give a good response to the parties’ concerns. After mediating thousands of cases, I have heard a lot of questions and concerns from the parties. The mediator has to give a response that informs without alienating one or both parties. Here are some responses that a mediator can make. They are not the only response but what I consider a good response.

How the Mediator Can Reframe One Party’s position.

The Mediator can change the tone of what is said to him. One side might be angry, distraught, and accusatory and say things that would solicit a negative response. Here are some examples of toning down the language.

Party: I am mad as hell and won’t take it anymore!

Mediator’s Interpretation: The other side is a little upset.

Party: He is a crook and liar.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The other side does not believe you.

Party: He did not send the item.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The party did not receive the item. Have you sent it yet?

Party: I want to quit this mediation.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The buyer wants me to close the case.

Party: The other party is the biggest jerk I have ever met.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The other party does not like what you have done.

Party: The item was smelly and filthy.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The buyer says the item was not clean and had an odor.

Party: I don’t trust him.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The buyer does not think you will do what you say you will.

Party: The seller ripped me off.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The buyer says he does not like what you did.

Party: He is just stupid.

Mediator’s Interpretation: The other party does not think you understand his position.

Party: Refurbished is supposed to be like new. This was a piece of garbage with scratches and dings.

Mediator’s Interpretation: His idea of refurbished is different from yours. He says there were scratches and dings.

Party: I would not sell my house to him if he was the last person on earth.

Mediator’s Interpretation: He has decided not to sell the house to you.

Carolyn Elefant’s was one of the first blogs I read, back in 2002 when she started MyShingle.com. She is offering a free download of a compiled collection of her blog posts called “The Lawyer You Always Wanted to Be: Inspiration for New Grads and Practicing Lawyers.” I think the points are also applicable for mediators and other conflict specialists, as they relate to the dreams and disappointments of establishing a business and being a helping professional.

As she says:

As you probably expect or already realize, practicing law can be stressful. Long hours, nasty supervisors, difficult clients and worries about making the student loan payments can put a damper on even the best of jobs. The day to day stress scarcely leaves time to evaluate where you’re going or how far you’ve come or whether you’re doing what matters to you. This collection of posts is intended to remind, encourage and inspire you to remember what matters and to become the lawyer you always wanted to be.

The article’s format makes clear it’s going to be published as a Change This manifesto (I have posted about other Change This manifestos before, e.g., here, on creativity; here on time management; here, titled Drawings That Will Change Your Life; and here, one of my favorites, on literacy). You have a chance to get Carolyn’s article now, pre-Change This release — just click below to download it. But if you go to her site here to download it by May 15, she’ll put you in a drawing for a copy of her newly published book Solo by Choice: How to Be the Lawyer You Always Wanted to Be.

inspired-solo-”The Lawyer You Always Wanted to Be”.pdf

I posted here announcing the premier edition of my column at the work-life online magazine The Complete Lawyer, distributed to some 300,000 attorneys nation-wide. The column is co-written with Vickie Pynchon, Diane Levin, and Stephanie West Allen. Here’s the newest installment of “The Human Factor,” how each of us became mediators after becoming lawyers.

The theme of this issue of The Complete Lawyer is “Focus On a Sound Mind In a Sound Body”. There’s a great intro to the issue here at the What About Clients? blog.

The issue’s theme quote is by Susan Daicoff, author of Lawyer, Know Thyself:

True intelligence requires the ability to integrate and synthesize the wisdom of the head and the heart, the Thinker and the Feeler, and the mind and the body. We are trained to “live in our heads.”

I referred to Susan’s work here when I began my series last week on MBTI applications in legal and mediation practices. Her book, Lawyer, Know Thyself, synthesized forty years of empirical research on lawyers’ personality traits and related these findings to professionalism and lawyer well being. I’ll be writing more about her findings later in the MBTI series.

This continues Mary Greenwood’s series based on an excerpt from Chapter 9, How To Mediate Like A Pro, published February 2008. Here are the links to Parts One, and Two.

As her bio states:

Mary Greenwood is an attorney, Mediator and Author of award-winning book, How To Negotiate Like A Pro: 41 Rules for Resolving Disputes and her most recent book is How To Mediate Like A Pro:42 Rules for Mediating Disputes.She lives in Miami Beach, Florida. Her website is www.marygreenwood.com and her email address is howtomediate@aol.com

How To Talk Like A Mediator

One of the hardest jobs of a mediator is to give a good response to the parties’ concerns. After mediating thousands of cases, I have heard a lot of questions and concerns from the parties. The mediator has to give a response that informs without alienating one or both parties. Here are some responses that a mediator can make. They are not the only response but what I consider a good response.

Comments About The Other Party

Principled Party: It is not about the money but the principle.

Mediator’s Response: I understand that you believe you are right and you don’t want to go against your principles. As a mediator, I do not determine who is right or wrong. It is possible to resolve a dispute without making that judgment call. What is it that you truly want? Is it an apology or a change in policy?

Take It or Leave It Party: This is what I want and I am not budging.

Mediator’s Response: I understand you don’t want to budge from your position. Unfortunately, the other side is not budging, either, and we are at an impasse. Mediation is a give and take and there has to be some compromise if the case is going to be resolved. If the impasse cannot be broken by one of the parties, then I will have to close the mediation. Why don’t you split the difference and both parties get something?

Self-Righteous Party: Why should I apologize? He is the one who is wrong?

Mediator’s Response: Sometimes an apology is an easy and cheap way to resolve a dispute. Just because you apologize does not mean that you are taking anything away from your position. You can honestly say that you are sorry for the confusion or misunderstanding. An apology can go a long way to help the other party feel good about the situation. However, an apology must be sincere or it will make things worse.

Self-Righteous Party: I have done nothing wrong.

Mediator’s Response: I don’t like to think in terms of who is right or who is wrong. That is not the way to get something resolved. Let’s look at some solutions that would resolve this situation.

Self-Righteous Party: He made the mistake. Why should I suffer?

Mediator’s Response: Mistakes do happen. To err is human. I don’t think he did it on purpose. This gives you a chance to me magnanimous and understanding.

Judgmental Party: It is not fair that I give something up.

Mediator’s Response: Mediation is not about fairness or getting even. Both parties have to be willing to compromise to find a solution.

Disinterested Party: I really don’t care if this gets resolved. It is the other side’s problem.

Mediator’s Response: The other side is motivated to resolve this situation. Can you think of anything the seller could say or do that might change your mind?

Angry Party: He makes me so mad.

Mediator’s Response: I know you are upset. However, mediation is not going to be successful if the parties let their emotions interfere with resolving the dispute. Let’s concentrate on what you want to settle this dispute. Would an apology make a difference?

Judgmental Party: The other side lied.

Mediator’s Response: I know there is a misunderstanding between the parties. Whether he did it intentionally, I have no way of knowing. I suggest we give him the benefit of the doubt and let’s move forward.

Disappointed Party: She does not know how to communicate.

Mediator’s Response: I know that you did not receive any emails from her. Is it possible your spam filter blocked her emails. What do you want to tell her now? Let’s move forward and see if we can communicate.

Defensive Party: Yes, I did make a mistake, but she overreacted.

Mediator’s Response: I am glad you admitted your mistake. Maybe she did overreact, but she was very upset. Would you be willing to apologize to her? Sometimes an apology can go a long way to help start some dialog.

Defensive Party: She is making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Mediator’s Response: I know you think that she is making too much out of this. However this is very important to her and she can’t help how she feels. Try to put yourself in her shoes. Is there any way you can make her an offer?

Unforgiving Party: I want others to see his feedback. I don’t want to withdraw it.

Mediator’s Response: I understand what you are saying and it is your choice. However, you are missing out on an opportunity to have your feedback withdrawn, too. If you don’t care if your feedback remains as well, then I will close the case.

The series will continue with Part Four, How the Mediator Can Reframe One Party’s position, next week.

A friend and colleague recently forwarded to me a September 2004 article Malcolm Gladwell did for The New Yorker on the MBTI and other personality tests that employers may use (Personality Plus: Employers Love Personality Tests. But What Do They Really Reveal?). I respect and use the MBTI as a tool in my law and mediation practices. Indeed, I am a “qualified administrator” of the instrument, which is a “controlled instrument” whose access and use is regulated as further defined by its publisher:

Certain assessments published by CPP are available only to users who have appropriate training and credentials, and who adhere to the principals of proper use, including knowledge of assessments and their applications.

The classifications are based on The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (published by APA, AERA, and NCME and available here). The Standards is written for the professional and for the educated layperson and addresses professional and technical issues of instrument development and use in education, psychology, and employment.

I believe understanding and using concepts and tools relating to the MBTI benefits attorneys, mediators and other conflict specialists. I posted here about a workshop I gave last year for the New Mexico Mediation Association on using the principles in communication. Other uses include helping clients get through misunderstandings based on type differences, identifying blind spots in the problem-solving process based on type, using type concepts to bridge cultural and gender differences by focusing on type similarities, and understanding one’s own type to better identify the kind of practice one wants.

Use of this psychological type analysis is better studied in the legal field than in the mediation practice context. The most notable law-related works are University of Florida Law Professor Don Peters’ article, Forever Jung: Psychological Type Theory, the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Learning Negotiation, 42 DRAKE LAW REVIEW 1 (1993); and Florida Coastal School of Law Professor Susan Swaim Daicoff’s book, Lawyer, Know Theyself: A Psychological Analysis of Personality Strengths and Weaknesses, American Psychological Association (2004). Direct works are slowly showing up in the mediation practice context, such as with Sondra S. VanSant’s Wired For Conflict: The Role of Personality in Resolving Differences, Center for Application of Psychological Type, Inc. (2003).

Gladwell, whose work I generally very much enjoy, makes good points, and I agree with much that he says. I’ll discuss his points as I continue this series exploring MBTI applications. At the same time as I appreciate his points I would reframe this discussion somewhat differently. Hence, this series. My thoughts, which I will expand on over the upcoming weeks, include:


1. No one field can explain human behavior to the exclusion of other considerations. I started out focused on sociological explanations (my BA and MA studies). Later, I got interested in psychology. Later, I got interested in the neurosciences. It’s no one of them. It’s all of them (and more, most likely).
2. Each field that has a role, it’s explanations are also affected by the other fields — it’s not additive, it’s complex, and synergistic.
3. Most people don’t want to deal with complexity, or don’t have the education or time to deal with complexity, and end up (over)simplifying, especially for explanations of how and why humans act as they do.
4. Every tool (whether sociological, psychological, or a theory about neuroscience) can be used by people who are not the most skilled or wise about its use, and can be misused.
5. Any explanation, or explainer, that/who doesn’t recognize the above, is suspect.

My thoughts also include, about MBTI:


1. Gladwell doesn’t discuss scientific principles of validity and reliability, as applied to the various instruments. I know the MBTI purports to be statistically valid and reliable, and I know it is characterized as a “controlled instrument” by the American Psychology Association, I think it is. You have to be “qualified” (includes some training in statistics) in order to administer the instrument.
   
2. I believe many who administer and/or give the workshops on the instrument have not done the more in depth study and followed the evolving theory about MBTI. Maybe they got qualified 10 years ago and just got into ruts. I had the inclination to study it in some of its more complex forms, because they made the most sense to me. At the same time, most people don’t want the complexity, don’t hear or remember the complexity, and can (rightly for them) conclude the instrument is not valuable, or is of limited value. It’s a tool — you have to practice it and then get not only good, but wise, in using it.
   
3. I also believe many who administer and/or give the workshops are wrong and/or are not understood by the participants on some practical points about the MBTI. Many friends have told me they’ve been given it by their employers, and they were not told some of the points I emphasize. I would disagree with some of Gladwell’s characterizations about what the MBTI is supposed to mean. (I also would put some different light on the mother-daughter development of the instrument. It is, to me, a much more interesting story than he reports, with broader implications — it could also be told in a way that makes his telling of it sexist and overly-dismissive of at home, independent researchers, especially women in the first half of the twentieth century.)

And, final thoughts include:


1. So, explaining or predicting human behavior is complex, a protean mix (hard wired, affected by the physical environment, affected by the social environment of cultures/societies, affected by family, affected by peers, affected by dysfunctionalities in any of them, affected by healthy versions in any of them.
   
2. I use the MBTI as a starting point, and when important I look at it/the person/the situation more closely, even very closely. It’s part of the working hypotheses I view the world with, at least some of the time. I don’t say it’s the only or even the best explanatory/predictive tool. It is one of the best for me, as a starting point — but then you have the person in the particular situation, for the particular purpose, etc. I think different people will prefer different tools.
   
3. Individuals vary in individual psychological health, experiential wisdom, courage and leadership. No one type is better than the other, there are healthy and unhealthy individuals among all types, wise and not wise among all types, courageous and not, etc.
   

I intend to post to this series weekly. I will appreciate your thoughts so please write me in the comments or privately!