Back to School

It is the end of August, the “back to school” time of year. Yesterday on the radio, I heard a discussion of what parents need to do to prepare their children for the new school year. The participants began talking about the usual books, pens, paper and other supplies, technology, clothing, etc. Fortunately, before I tuned out, they turned to the more important question of how you prepare children mentally. How do you put them in the right frame of mind to learn both the substance of what is being taught as well as how to interact with teachers and other students? It was good to hear a discussion that encouraged parents to get involved with their children’s education. Too many parents these days use the schools merely as babysitters, to take care of their children while the parents are at work. Education should continue at home, not just in the classroom.

The discussion soon focused on problems that arise at school that can turn children off to education, like bad teachers and bullies. What is a parent to do? How involved do they need to be? What lesson should parents give children to prepare them for obstacles at school? The answer was a pleasant surprise to me. In an age where some parents are too uninvolved and others are over-involved (so-called “helicopter parents” who hover over their children), I expected to hear something about finding the middle ground or happy medium. Instead, what I heard was elegantly simple: “Work it out!” The participants in this discussion did not urge parents to monitor every problem, call school to complain about bad teachers or bullies, or help their children out of every difficulty. Rather, they urged parents to tell their children that problems and conflicts will occur, and children must be prepared to work it out and resolve the problems themselves. Of course, this requires children to know how to stand up for themselves and be their own advocates, without resorting to violence. This is something both teachers and parents should help children do. It is a skill that will help them throughout their lives. Sometimes, they will be able to do it themselves and other times they will not. But if they try, they will at least learn when they need to seek help and who to seek it from.

This discussion should be required material in business schools. I have seen people turn their business problems over to lawyers and tell them to “handle it,” when the parties themselves could have worked it out more efficiently if they knew how to communicate and advocate for themselves effectively. Fortunately, many attorneys are skilled negotiators and advocates in and out of the courtroom. But it certainly makes the attorney’s job easier if the client is also involved in and adept at the process. That is a skill that can and should be learned in school. When parties in dispute cannot get the other side’s attention or have trouble focusing on the issues, that is when attorneys or mediators need to be called in. And then it is time for everyone to go back to school and find a way to work it out.

Lost in translation

In the 2003 film Lost in Translation, actor Bill Murray’s character frequently listens to one of his Japanese hosts or directors ramble on for at least a minute in Japanese only to have a translator explain it in English in a few seconds. Murray looks at the interpreter incredulously and says “Is that really all he said?” Obviously, the interpreter greatly oversimplified what was said and omitted any implication the Japanese speaker’s tone or inflection might have conveyed.

In my mediation training, we were taught to try to restate participants’ concerns in other words, showing both concern and understanding. However, even when all the parties are speaking the same language, this technique runs the risk of misstating or oversimplifying a participant’s concerns or interests. This does not mean that a mediator should not try to restate the concerns and interests. Rather, the mediator must understand that the opposing sides in a dispute frequently have different understandings of the facts based upon their own narrative. Even when speaking the same language, something can be lost in translation. As George Bernard Shaw noted, “England and America are two countries separated by a common language.” Similarly, business partners, competitors, buyers and sellers, and even spouses can speak in jargon or terms that are unfamiliar to others. Sometimes, this is what causes the dispute or conflict. Finding common ground requires the parties to be speaking the same language and understanding each other’s terminology.

In one recent mediation, the participants were arguing about whether a computerized system was defective. One party referred to a pass code. The other said there was no such thing, but there was a registration key. Ultimately, it appeared they were talking about the same thing but they thought it was different. Helping them realize what the other was talking about, even in the same language, became my most difficult challenge. Without a mediator, they might never have reached an agreement. I’m not bilingual, but it seems I can help translate English to English.

Uncertain certainty

In my last post, I noted that predictability was not a hallmark of trial by jury. Long ago, I gave up predicting what a jury would do. Perhaps this is what utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham was thinking when he said “The power of the lawyer is in the uncertainty of the law.” Negotiators for NFL players and owners may also have recognized the risks in predicting the future when they recently settled their contract disputes.

Meanwhile, our nation’s capital seems to be filled with those who are certain that they know what the future holds and what is best for the country. The problem is that at least two groups are so certain, and their proposed policies are mutually exclusive. One side believes we can reduce our deficit (if not balance the budget) strictly by making cuts in expenditures. The other believes that both expenditure cuts and revenue increases are necessary. No one believes that Congress and the President will risk ruining the nation’s credit rating by defaulting on the national debt, but they are playing a dangerous game of chicken. Someone has to blink.

In litigation, many cases settle on the courthouse steps, with a jury in the box, ready to decide the case. These last minute settlements frequently occur because one side finally realizes a flaw in its case or a mistake in assessing the risk of an adverse decision. Settlements made under such circumstances are rarely favorable to the panicked party. Such outcomes are bad enough when they involve private parties involved in civil litigation. They can be catastrophic when the nation’s finances and economy are at stake.

Unfortunately, no independent, impartial mediator appears to be ready and able to save our elected leaders from themselves. The President cannot be mediator-in-chief because he, too, is a politician with a dog in the fight. We can only hope that the impending debt ceiling deadline provides the necessary reality check that brings the warring factions to their senses and produces a solution we can all live with.

Popping the "information cocoon"

Sometimes, reading a New York Times book review can be better than reading the book. This past weekend, a review of the book The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding From You prompted me to think about how people can be trapped inside their own “information cocoons.” Google and other internet search engines, as well as Facebook, LinkedIn and other social media, apparently spoon feed us information they think we would like to see, based upon our past searches and selections. Their algorithms personalize search results and rankings according to the searcher’s previous internet history. The book details how and why this is done, as well as exploring the political and social implications of search engine personalization. The book review raises the question of whether governmental regulation to achieve more “serendipitous discovery” is desirable.

This topic is important in understanding how people make decisions and why disputes and conflict arise. Perhaps this is one of the reasons many people perceive an increase polarization and hostility in recent public discourse. When the information you receive on the internet is tailored to complement your previous disposition, you are less able and likely to see the other side’s point of view.

In dispute and conflict resolution, it is sometimes necessary to pop a person’s “information cocoon” to help him or her understand the other side’s position and the risks of continuing the conflict. Mediators often must test a participant’s underlying presumptions by engaging in “reality checks.” Another way to think about this process is to pop the information cocoon. Where are the parties to the dispute getting their information? Are they familiar with the other side’s sources? If not, it may be worth their time to take a look. 

Good litigators must know the other side’s case as well as their own. Good negotiators must be similarly prepared. If internet search engines and social media are making that more difficult, we must be aware of it and be prepared to deal with it. Removing the filters from our search engines would be a good start toward diversifying our information sources. Mediators should be prepared to point out this problem to parties in dispute in order to help pop their information cocoons.

Caveat negotiator

An excellent article in the current issue of the Wisconsin Lawyer, titled “Negotiating in the Red Zone,” discusses the risk of legal malpractice liability for lawyers conducting settlement negotiations for clients.  The “red zone” occurs when an opposing party makes an offer within the client’s stated acceptable range but the attorney believes that they can obtain a better offer by rejecting it and negotiating further.  The risk is that the opposing party will terminate the settlement discussions and a trial will result in a worse outcome.  The author argues that lawyers are more vulnerable to professional liability when a settlement opportunity is lost in red-zone situations than in non-red-zone cases.

The article suggests that attorneys fully advise clients of the risks and benefits of continuing negotiations in such situations, and that they document and not deviate from the client’s agreed-on strategy.  It also mentions that this advice should be followed even in mediation.  It does not discuss how the mediator should address or participate in the decision to accept or reject a red zone offer.  At a minimum, the mediator should be aware of the ethical considerations and risks of liability that the attorney is facing.  While the mediator probably has no obligation to advise the lawyer of the heightened risk, doing so could enhance the prospect of a final settlement.  Without a participant’s consent, a mediator cannot disclose whether an offer is a final bottom line.  But the mediator can help attorneys and their clients to intelligently consider and evaluate the risks and benefits of continuing to negotiate versus accepting an offer.  The mediator might also help to document the attorney’s advice and the client’s decision regarding red zone negotiation strategy.  Thus, a mediator may help to reduce the attorney’s risk of ethical problems or professional liability. 

In other words, the article demonstrates another reason to seek out a mediator to assist in delicate or complex negotiations to resolve litigation or civil disputes.