…With Purpose

I believe in acting with purpose.  I have found it necessary for success.  The first time I grasped the importance of acting with purpose was as a kid on the basketball court.

Although I was the tallest on my team, I was a weak rebounder.  My coach taught me to be strategic about where I placed myself on the court in order to be a successful rebounder.  “Position yourself at a right-angle from where the shooter is,” he told me.  “That’s where the ball tends to go after a missed shot,” he continued, “that way you’ll automatically increase your chances of getting your hands on the ball.”

          My coach’s advice seemed a little too basic, too simple; but when I put it into practice I was stunned by the results.  I began asking myself, “Why am I here?  Why am I on this spot on the court?”  The answer, of course, was “to get rebounds.”  Then I could definitively answer with a “yes” or “no” the next logical question, “Is this the best place for me to be to accomplish that?”  Once I began moving on the court with a conscious, strategic purpose, the ball came to me more.  My efforts to pull down rebounds were more successful because I was already close to the action. 

Acting with purpose doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s a necessary step in getting there.  Asking myself whether I am acting with purpose also forces me to be clear about what my purpose was in the first place.  I am shocked at my tendency to lose sight of my goals, but remembering the importance of acting with purpose keeps me in the game.

This deliberate mindset is nowhere more crucial than in interpersonal conflict.  When acting as a participant, I need to be purposeful in my speech and demeanor.  When acting as a mediator, I must be aware of the purposes of all the participants as well as purposeful in my direction of the discussion.  Every note I take, every question I ask, every movement I make should be purposeful.

I cannot spark a powerful, courageous conversation without a foundation of purposeful action.  Like deliberate actions to rebound a basketball, not all actions will bring success, but each one is necessary for reaching eventual success.

[I recently contributed this to a compilation of short essays for the 2011 annual conference for the Oregon Mediation Association, which incorporated “courageous conversations” as its major theme]

Snowball The Issues

When facing a difficult conversation with multiple issues to tackle, snowball the issues.  Before explaining my suggestion, let me contrast it with a less effective method that we humans tend to employ too often.
 
You know what the shotgun approach is.  It is a chaotic attempt to cover all your bases.  It is a symptom of not knowing what to aim at.  Using the shotgun approach can comfort us by freeing us from the responsibility of deciding how to tackle multiple issues in a conversation.  That sense of comfort, however, never lasts long because the issues start tackling you instead.  Using the shotgun approach is like playing the classic “whack-a-mole” arcade game.  The game is your conflict and each “mole” is an issue in that conflict.  You are limited to making reactive decisions rather than deciding when and how you will tacke each “mole,” each issue.
 
What’s the more deliberate alternative?  The snowball.
 
Identify as many of the issues as you can.  How many issues need to be resolved?  Next, order those issues from small to big, least complicated to most complicated, or from most easily resolved to most difficult to resolve–you get the idea.  By beginning with the smaller, simpler issues you will be more likely to get some early victories.  As each issue begins to snowball, it will create momentum in your negotiation.  Once you get to get down to the most difficult issue, you will have experienced a string of successes that will make you confident that you can resolve the biggest one. 
 
This method may not be ideal for every situation, but it can be used as a framework for almost any contentious conversation.  You may find that an issue you expected to be easy is in fact a very contested one.  When this happens, don’t let it halt your momentum!  Skip over that issue and come back to it later, or simply rearrange it in the order of issues in your snowball–whichever makes the most sense to you.  Remember that keeping the conversation productive requires you to put in the work of driving the conversaton forward.

Prestige, Power and “Good Offices”

International conflicts play an ongoing part in human history.  Therefore, it is no surprise that influential leaders have developed their own “everyday” methods to resolve them.  “Good Offices” is a term describing one such method that involves using an individual’s prestige or power to help broker a deal.  Conveniently, this international method for solving disputes has a real-life parallel for individials in their everyday conflicts.  What is it?  Well, first let’s understand the method.

When I came across the term “Good Offices” I wanted to find out how it is similar or different from other ADR processes.  According to idrgroup.org, “Good Offices describes the informal and facilitative process conducted by a third party – often behind the scenes – to assist parties in dispute to establish contact and to begin to explore ways to reach an amicable settlement. Such ways might include more formal procedures such as mediation or arbitration.  The Good Offices process often tends to be used in disputes between States. The third party neutral in those circumstances is likely to be a respected international figure experienced in dealing with inter-State disputes.” 

So, this method is similar to mediation in its use of a third-party neutral, but is less formal and can be even more ongoing.  In fact, “Good Offices” may even encorporate a medaited or abritrated process, thereby making it broader in scope and duration that those processes which have deadlines.

The practical way to think about Good Offices is to think of it as an individual’s actual reputation or prestige.  For example, former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan (pictured above), often relied on his “Good Offices” (his prestige) in brokering deals between countries or political factions.

Applying this method to our individual everyday conflicts is easy to imagine.  Look for respected individuals who might serve as an informal go-between in your conflict.  Make sure it is someone who the other person respects as well.  Such a person may be rare, but it is worth considering, especially when you are facing a long or seemingly unsolvable conflict.

My Favorite Way to Diffuse Anger

Despite my efforts at being a perfect human being, I can still anger people in my life.  Other times, they are not angry “at” me but merely sharing with me their anger about something or someone else.  I’m not talking about anger towards the government or how foolish the latest Hollywoodbreakup was, but anger towards real, personal, everyday problems.  Diffusing that anger and turning it into something positive can be a real challenge. 

My favorite way to diffuse another person’s anger is to make their problem my own.  When I acknowledge their anger instead of discounting their feelings, they become surprised and they tend to calm down.  Then, I quickly move beyond acknowledging their anger to asking how we can look for a solution to their problem together. 

That strategy usually accomplishes two things for me.  First, it places me on the same team as the other person, instead of on opposing sides.  Second, it instantly shifts their focus from the past to what we can do about the problem now and in the future. 

Naturally, if you are the target of their anger and they see you as the problem, be prepared to show a little humility (this strategy will test the limits of your defensive reactions).  At the same time, this strategy is not about appeasement; rolling over is not part of a recipe for developing lasting win-win solutions.  The beauty of showing them you are on their side is the “surprise” effect it has on them.  Making their problem your own can prove that you are willing to invest not only in solving their problem, but in them as a person.  It instantly conveys your respect and your belief that they are valuable. 

Ultimately, it may be the quickest and most effective way to diffuse anger in everyday conversations.

Is Empowerment a Good Goal?

Empowerment is often espoused as a goal of the mediation process.  Until recently, I have unquestioningly accepted that that empowering individuals to take more responsibility for resolving their conflicts is a plus for choosing mediation over other processes.  Perhaps you believe this too, but after reading this, perhaps you’ll add the caveat that recently challenged me.

As a mediator, I’ve felt part of a movement which instills dignity, confidence and pride in the individual participants in mediation.  It has given me a twinge of feeling that must be similar to what Peace Corps volunteers feel working in third-world countries.  I’ve felt that I help individuals develop or create the tools they need to deal positively with conflict, thus giving them a sense of pride when they find they are able to engage in shaping a solution to their situation.

While those feelings hold a lot of truth, I also believe there is a difference between empowerment and revealing what was already there.  It is a slight distinction, but one that I—and many other mediators—may have missed.

Yes, my thinking about mediation was challenged again, this time by a statement about management styles.  In his book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, author Daniel Pink asks us to “consider the very notion of ‘empowerment.’ It presumes that the organization has the power and benevolently ladles some of it into the waiting bowls of grateful employees.”  He contrasts empowerment with real “autonomy.”  Autonomy, he argues, is the kind of inside-out freedom that originates in the individual.

The mediation process is like the management process in that it loses its effectiveness if it assumes it is the source of the individual’s power.  The real “power” does not originate in the mediation process or in the almighty mediator but in the individual participants.  The hope, or goal, of mediation is that it can provide a mirror to see the power they already posses.

Is empowerment a good goal in mediation?  If empowerment means graciously bestowing abilities or resources on individuals, we should rethink this goal.

One Big Tip For Your Meetings This Week

There is one thing that should not be overlooked prior to any meeting.  This thing is an important indicator of success in any process that people engage in to collaborate.  What is it?
 
It is…….early communication.
 
As an attorney I often see this in my juvenile dependency hearings.  The most efficient hearings are the ones where the attorneys or other participants have spoken with each other before the hearing.  When I have those opportunities to be fully prepared I can relate the most important points that the judge needs to hear.  If one participant has a problem or complaint then the other participants are often able to respond in a helpful and appropriate manner to come up with potential solutions right away. 
 
Small claims mediation is similar.  When my mediation participants have communicated prior to mediation my responsibilities as a mediator are streamlined.  There are few suprises because the parties know what to expect and have identified the major areas of agreement and disagreement.  The conversation has a definite direction and therefore is more efficient.
 
Do you have a work meeting this week?  Locate the other key participants and briefly exchange expectations for that meeting.  This early communication will create an atmoshphere of collaboration.  A brief but personal conversation with the other participants may even turn a potentially contentious meeting into a constructive one.

Craigslist Negotiator: Should You Make the First Offer?

Strategy is important in negotiation.  One of the most debated negotiation strategies is whether it is wise to make the first offer.  As with any strategy, the answer depends on the facts.  Let me share a recent scenario of mine to demonstrate my thinking.

I am considering purchasing a car from a private seller I found on Craigslist.  I’ve met with the seller once and test drove the car.  The seller disclosed the dollar amounts of two prior offers he received and said that they were too low.  I believe that he disclosed the offers and his rejection of them to demonstrate that he is holding out for his preferred price.  But he also disclosed he is on a limited time frame.  As he runs out of time he will be more likely to accept a lower price.  I did not make an offer immediately.  Instead, I said I would get back to him with an offer.  Two additional important factors in this scenario are that the seller is offering a price on the high side of market value, and that I truly have no emotional connection to this car; in other words, I have “walk-away power.”

Should I make him an offer between his asking price and the offers he previously rejected?  Or, should I ask what lower price he is willing to accept?

On the one hand, if you make the first offer you can set expectations for the negotiation.  This is called “anchoring”, because you are throwing an anchor down to keep the conversation from drifting too far from the initial proposal.  One school of thought says you should not allow the other side to have that advantage.  

On the other hand, if you allow the other side to make the first offer they may make a favorable offer in the interest of appearing reasonable and polite.  Generally, the effectiveness of this strategy depends on two things: (1) the research done by the other party, and (2) your ability to not be surprised by their offer and give a good initial response.  

In my car negotiation, I am considering the second strategy; I will ask, based on his short time-frame, what lower price he’d be willing to accept.  Regardless of whether he offers the same asking price or a lower number, I can respond, “Unfortunately, that’s not nearly low enough. Based on that offer, I don’t feel I can make a counter-offer without offending you, so unless you can accept a different amount, I feel we’ll be unable to reach a deal today.”  This can put pressure on the seller to come down in price without me divulging exactly what I’m willing to pay.  However, this could also end the conversation, which is fine with me since I am truly willing to walk away from this car and find a deal I’m more comfortable with. 

Why did I decide not to make the first offer?  Because the seller would be more likely to reject it out of hand as he did the two previous offers he told me about.  This would place pressure on me to make the first compromise and offer a higher amount.

Now, what I’d like to know is: What strategy would you suggest in this situation?

Ask for Forgiveness…or Permission?

The phrase “It’s better to ask for forgiveness than permission” is a piece of advice born out of practical experience.  However, because this phrase is results-oriented rather than relationship-oriented, there is a danger in applying this phrase to some situations.

The phrase assumes that you lack authority to initiate the action or decision you seek.  It suggests you should focus on the immediate goal and forgo consideration of any future consequences to a later time.  This may work when you are desperate and lack authority, but what about when you actually have authority to make a decision?  Even when you don’t have to ask permission, there is value in seeking input.

My first example comes from a mediation where it was unclear whether a neighbor had authority to make a decision.  A mediation participant was offended that her neighbor did not consult her before replacing an old shared fence between their properties.  Although she agreed the new fence was lovely, she did not agree with it being there because he did not consult her opinion. 

Now, instead of appreciating the neighbor’s effort in replacing the old fence, she dissected everything that was wrong with the fence.  The new shared fence was located entirely on her property instead of being on the property line.  This led her to believe the neighbor was trying to extend his property boundary.  When the neighbor said this was not his intent, she didn’t trust him because he didn’t seek her input from the beginning.  Therefore, regardless of whether the neighbor had the legal authority to replace the fence, he lost the respect of his neighbor because he failed to seek her input. 

In my second example, business leadership possessed authority and did not have to ask permission.  The management of the Los Angeles Lakers did not get Kobe Bryant’s input when they decided to hire Mike Brown as their new head coach in May, 2011. Kobe’s official reaction?  “No comment.”  Do you think that the superstar of the Lakers would have appreciated the opportunity to give his opinion on who the new coach would be?  I would bet on it. 

Laker management had authority and certainly did not have to ask Kobe’s permission.  However, being in the position of power, they could have included him in the process.  Even if Kobe disagreed, he could not stop management from making that decision, thus there would’ve been little risk for management to ask his opinion. Kobe might have respected management more.  Instead, Laker management risked damaging their relationship withKobe by failing to seek his input.

Next time you find yourself in a position of authority when making an important decision, don’t be afraid to seek input even when you don’t have to ask for permission.  It might earn you some respect and save you a headache later.

The Dreaded “C” Word

Conflict.

Most people encounter it every day.  It is an important part of life, whether it describes international warfare or interpersonal squabbles.  Let me walk you through three ideas that I hope will convince you to be strategic in your approach your everyday conflict interactions with others.

First, increase your ability to identify situations where conflicting interests exist.  Why don’t we identify more of our everyday experiences as conflicts?  One problem is with the word itself: “conflict” has a very negative connotation.  Constant conflict is not something that most people strive for in their daily lives.  So let’s simply focus on the fact that we are not in conflict, but rather our interests are in conflict.  This is valuable because when you recognize the existence of conflicting interests you will also be more able to identify the overlapping or shared interests.  This, in turn, allows you to identify practical solutions.

Second, name the conflicting interests.  Maybe not out loud, but at least in your head.  Label the interests as precisely as possible.  For example, when negotiating who gets the front passenger seat in a car you might identify your interest as “I want to be comfortable,” and your friend’s interest as “she just doesn’t want to sit next to Adam.”  The more specific you are, the quicker you can determine whether there is a simple solution that everyone is likely to agree on.

The third idea is to consider others as resources.  Conflicting interests does not necessitate conflicting people.  Two heads are better than… you get the picture.  Chances are that if they have different interests than you then they have a different viewpoint than you.  That different perspective, if positively engaged, might open up a number of possibilities you haven’t yet considered.

We often take the easiest and quickest way out of any situation we feel might lead to a true “conflict.”  Then, we typically forget about the situation and move on without learning anything.  Instead, why not practice identifying interests, naming those interests, and considering others as resources?  By transforming our thinking in everyday situations we can begin to be more effective in our approach to conflict.

How do you define conflict?

Advocates and the Mediation Toolbox

I had an experience recently which made me feel as though I was a mediator even though I was not neutral.  In my role as an attorney, I am one of the least neutral people there can be.  However, here I was sitting with my client to my right and opposing counsel to my left, utilizing tools I’ve often used in my neutral role.

I puzzled over why that moment of advocacy felt so similar to being a mediator.  Attorneys are advocates and therefore are non-neutral by definition.  Mediators are concerned with how the process can serve everyone’s interests and therefore are (hopefully) the most neutral people in their professional role.  So I was left asking myself, “What were the similarities?  Was it simply that I was dealing with conflict?”

Here are the two major tools that I believe made me feel like a mediator in that situation: identifying interests and reframing.

Both advocates and neutrals must identify interests.  People in conflict often approach the problem by taking positions or making demands.  Both neutrals and advocates have to ask insightful questions to get beyond those demands in order to identify the underlying reasons for those demands.  In my personal example, asking questions of both sides enabled my client and I to understand that the other side was focused on the future, while we were focused on the present.  This understanding helped move the conversation forward.

By reframing, both advocates and neutrals can limit confusion and misperceptions (not to mention BS…).  I found this to be true in my example because I reframed my client’s or the other person’s statements several times in order to get both people to understand that they were in fact talking about the same thing.  I was not neutral because I often interjected to advise my client.  However, my reframing was part of that advocacy because it allowed my client understand what the opposing side was most concerned about.

Advocates and neutrals are both in the business of solving problems.  Good advocates add value by efficiently helping their clients reach effective solutions to their problem.  Good neutrals do the same thing, but in a neutral role.  So despite their clear differences, advocates and neutrals really utilize the same toolbox quite often.