First Impressions Count — So Make a Good One

By Steven G. Mehta

 

My mom has always told me that the way you dress is important for your first impression.  When I was young, I didn’t listen.  But as I have aged, I have come to learn that Mom’s advice was correct.  First impressions do matter when it comes to communicating personality through appearance, according to new research by psychologists Laura Naumann of Sonoma State University and Sam Gosling of The University of Texas at Austin.

Very little research has been done to examine the accuracy of personality impressions based on appearance alone. This new study addresses this issue.  The findings will be published in the December 2009 issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, co-written with Simine Vazire (Washington University in St. Louis) and Peter J. Rentfrow (University of Cambridge).

“The appearance one portrays in his or her photographs has important implications for their professional and social life,” say the authors.

Even when viewing subjects in a controlled pose, the observers could accurately judge some major personality traits, including extraversion and self-esteem. But most traits were hard to detect under these conditions. When observers saw naturally expressive behavior (such as a smiling expression or energetic stance), their judgments were accurate for nine of the 10 personality traits. The 10 traits were extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, openness, likability, self-esteem, loneliness, religiosity and political orientation.

“We have long known that people jump to conclusions about others on the basis of very little information,” says Gosling, “but what’s striking about these findings is how many of the impressions have a kernel of truth to them, even on the basis of something as simple a single photograph.”

“If you want potential employers or romantic suitors to see you as a warm and friendly individual, you should post pictures where you smile or are standing in a relaxed pose,” suggests Naumann.

For example, whether you smile and how you stand (tense vs. relaxed, energetic vs. tired) are important cues to judge a variety of traits. Extraverts smile more, stand in energetic and less tense ways, and look healthy, neat and stylish. People who are more open to experience are less likely to have a healthy, neat appearance, but are more likely to have a distinctive style of dress.

The researchers also found males who have a neat and healthy appearance are often seen as more conscientious. However, defining personality in women was more difficult because they were more strongly influenced by cultural demands to look presentable.

As negotiators, it is important to make sure that your first appearance and impression sends the message that you want to communicate.  For example, one attorney arrived at a morning mediation with a very wrinkled jacket, tie loosened, and very casual shoes.  What impression did he make?  How did the other side view him?  What about his client?

Second, if you are going to the trouble of getting your photograph in print, make sure that it is a good photograph that portrays the image you desire.  Ask others to look at the picture and to give commentary.  But remember to take that advice with a grain of salt.

Third, take consideration to how your online presence looks.  According to a recent article in Pyschology Today, people know how extroverted they appear in social media, but do not know what other traits are being suggested. Make sure that your message is consistent.

 

Reference Source:

 

University of Texas at Austin (2009, November 4). First Impressions Count When Making Personality Judgments, New Research Shows. ScienceDaily. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com  /releases/2009/11/091103112253.htm

Mediating Employment Disputes

By Steven G. Mehta

Many employers are now agreeing to use mediation as a form of resolving disputes with employees.  In fact, over the last 10 years, mediation has become the most popular form of alternative dispute resolution used both inside and outside of the court systems.  For example, the Los Angeles Superior Court system resolves approximately 50% of its cases through its court mediation panel.  In addition, a substantial percentage of additional cases are also resolved through private mediation.  In a recent study of federal courts, mediation was found to resolve as much as 80% of the disputes.  As such, it is important to understand what mediation is as well is to understand the benefits of mediation.

Mediation is a process where a neutral third party listens to both sides’ concerns and tries to help each side arrive at a fair resolution.  Many people often confuse mediation with arbitration, where each side presents its case and then a neutral third party “arbitrator” make a final determination.  The mediation process can last from a few hours to a few days depending on the complexity of the case.  However, most employment cases can be resolved within one day, which is considerably less than the many years required to resolve lawsuits.

The mediation process has gained substantial favor in employment disputes because of several reasons.  First, mediation is far more cost-effective that going through litigation.  Often, litigation can last for several years and cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  In fact, the average cost of litigating an employment dispute is over $75,000; whereas, mediation can usually resolve a dispute within a day.

Second, mediation allows the parties to be part of creating a resolution instead of having a decision imposed upon them by outsiders.  For example, if the employee and employer are having a dispute regarding employee discipline, the mediator will talk to both sides regarding their positions.  In addition, the mediator may tell each side their respective problems and why each side may not necessarily be seeing the entire picture.  In doing so, the mediator will slowly be able to help the parties to identify possible solutions that may be workable in the circumstances.

In one employment case that I mediated, the employee felt that she was terminated because of her sex and age.  On the other hand, the employer felt that the employee’s performance was inadequate and that she was terminated for performance reasons.  The employee’s main concern was to have a good recommendation for future employment whilst the employer’s main concern was to avoid bad publicity.  By hearing both sides and letting each side express its concerns, I allowed each side to vent its frustrations regarding the relationship.  Once that was accomplished, the parties, with my help, were quickly able to arrive at a fair solution which included the employee receiving a fair but neutral reference letter and the employee agreed not to make bad publicity for the employer.  In that case, unlike in a lawsuit, both sides gained something from the dispute.

Third, by letting each side express its concerns in a non-hostile and impartial setting, the mediation often minimizes a dispute because the parties have talked their issues out.  On the other hand, once the parties head towards litigation, the dispute usually escalates into something worse.  Many cases have been successfully resolved well before any lawsuit is filed.

Many employers are now placing mediation clauses as a mandatory requirement for all employment disputes between employers and employees.  Often this requirement is placed in an employment manual or employment contract.  Generally, the mediation clause requires the parties to first try to work out the dispute informally.  However, if the dispute is not resolved, then the parties agree to go to mediation immediately before a third party mediator.

Even if you don’t have a mediation clause, it is very easy to initiate mediation.  If an employer suspects that a dispute will occur or if a dispute actually takes place, the employer can simply suggest that mediation would be something valuable.  Often the employer’s investment in a few hours of mediation can pay off by eliminating the dispute before it has a chance to escalate.

Although mediation can be used in many circumstances, the following scenarios are examples of times when an employer can suggest mediation:

• An employee is angry about being terminated.
• An employee accuses another employee of harassment.
• The employee claims that wages are not paid or breaks are not given.

Mediation is now considered one of the best ways to resolve disputes.  Not only does it allow the parties to take ownership of the solution, but it also assists the parties in being able to properly resolve disputes rather than escalating disputes into huge legal battles.  Finally, mediation allows people to truly listen to each other; and by doing so, can help to prevent disputes in the first place.

Conflict Resolution Strategies For Everyday Use

By Steven G. Mehta

As a mediator, it is my job to be right in the middle of conflict.  Indeed, often as a mediator, we have to listen to things that the other side may not be willing to listen and then communicate that message to the other side in a way that does not turn off the other side yet communicates the message.  It makes me think that conflict is a normal part of life.  We all have conflict, and many people are afraid of conflict.  Rather than thinking that conflict is a bad thing, perhaps we can consider using it as a good thing:  An opportunity to communicate and clarify in a relationship.  As such, I have put together some suggestions when a conflict starts.  Hopefully, you will find them interesting…

1.  Calm Down.  Take deep breaths.  While breathing, think of a good things in your life.  Doing this will help you from feeling overwhelmed by the conflict and will enable you to think clearly.

2. How important is this person? Most people regret what they say most to their most loved ones.  Remember at the end of the day and the end of the conflict, you still have to be friends, co-workers, spouses, or family.  Focus on the fact that you are cleaning up your communication issues and the positive nature of that conflict.

3.  What are your needs? Don’t  get distracted from your own best goals/needs by the conflict.  More often the conflict is a temporary distraction rather than something that helps you achieve your goals. Think about  long-term interests are in the situation, and rank them by priority, so that you stay focused on negotiating the issues that really matter to you.

4.  Will This Issue Matter in a Year? Choose your battles wisely.  Will it matter and why?  Most times, the answer is no.  This can help guide you to determine if this is a battle worth fighting.

5. Consider the Other Person as an Ally.  Just changing your view of the other person in conflict can help you manage your emotions and the conflict itself.  Further, it allows you to focus the conflict on cooperative efforts rather than opposing efforts.

6. Begin by listening to the other person and affirming anything that you can agree on. Look carefully for any and all the areas where your interests and needs might overlap with their interests and needs. Verbally identify those commonalities.  Address prior agreements or successes with that person. R Then work to expand the areas of agreement.

7. Acknowledge and apologize for any mistakes. Many people refuse to apologize.  Don’t be afraid to do so.  Also, unequivocally apologize without any mitigators.  In other words, no “Sorry, but…”

8. Summarize the other person’s needs, feelings First. When people feel heard, they are more likely to listen. Summarize to let people know that you have understood them, not to argue with their view.

9.  Focus On Principled Solutions, Not Positions. For example, if you can’t agree on a price for something, see if you can agree on a fair rule to set the price. If you can’t agree on a fair rule, focus on finding a referee who could help you and your partner-in-conflict define a fair rule.

10. Ask For Specific Actionable Items.  Rather than focusing on overall feelings or attitudes, focus on things that can be done specifically.   Answer the Who, What, When, Where, and especially Why about your request.  Explain how the actions will help you and if possible, the other person.

Conspiracy Theories and Mediation

By Steven G. Mehta

 

Was there a conspiracy to murder J.F.K?  How about 9/11, was that a conspiracy to get us into Iraq?  What about Pearl Harbor, did the government know the exact date and time of the attack and not reveal it.  Well, those and other questions are usually themes portrayed by conspiracy theorists.  The question is, however, do you have a conspiracy theorist in the room with you during mediation?  And if so, what can you do about it?

On many occasions, I have been confronted in mediation by a person who in some way may be a conspiracy theorist.  In one case many years ago, I had explained to the plaintiff how the process was allowing him to make the choices.  Later in the mediation, I asked his attorney to step aside to discuss some matters.  Three minutes later, the client banged on the door in which the attorney and I were discussing the case and insisted that he be part of the process.  “What are you talking about?  I thought you said I had control.  I want to know everything that is said about me.”  I immediately calmed him down and after that point we did not have any private attorney/mediator conferences.  That incident pointed out an important lesson to me:  If you are going to have a conversation with the attorney privately, make sure to ask the client’s permission before doing so.

A recent article in Pyschology Today by John Gartner entitled Dark Minds sheds some light on conspiracy theorists.  According to Gartner, conspiracy thinking is not an isolated occurrence.  Sixty-nine percent of Americans believe President John F. Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy, and 42 percent believe the government is covering up evidence of flying saucers, finds Ted Goertzel, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University at Camden. Thirty-six percent of respondents to a 2006 Scripps News/Ohio University poll at least suspected that the U.S. government played a role in 9/11.

According to historian Richard Hofstadter in his book The Paranoid Style in American Politics, conspiracy thinking is fueled by underlying feelings of alienation and helplessness. This theory is supported by current research in psychology.  Psychologist Marina Abalakina-Paap has found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are especially likely to feel angry, mistrustful, alienated from society, and helpless over larger forces controlling their lives.

Conspiracy theorists have a grandiose view of themselves as heroes “manning the barricades of civilization” at an urgent “turning point” in history, Hofstadter held. Grandiosity is often a defense against underlying feelings of powerlessness.

Even “normal” people are susceptible to believing in conspiracy theories when they feel disempowered. Jennifer Whitson of the University of Texas and Adam Galinsky of Northwestern demonstrated that people primed to feel out of control are particularly likely to see patterns in random stimuli.

According to Gartner,“while all of us tend to bend information to fit our pre-existing cognitive schema, conspiracy theorists are more extreme. They are “immune to evidence,” discounting contradictory information or seeing it as “proof of how clever the enemy is at covering things up.”  They will jump to conclusions based upon coincidences explain Paul D. Morrison and R.M. Murray of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London.

What Can You Do If you Have a Conspiracy

Theorist in the Room?

First, by understanding that the conspiracy theorist may simply be manifesting behavior related to feeling helpless is important.  The litigation process can have a tendency to make people feel like they are helpless.  Create ways to empower the person.  Let them know that they are in charge.  As in the lesson from above regarding the attorney, get that person’s permission to do things.  In mediation, you might consider getting that person’s permission.  Ask for their advice.  Get their opinions.

Second, keep them informed.  Helplessness sometimes can arise because of lack of information.  Often, the client needs more information about the process, the substance, and the means of achieving his or her goals.  Many times when I have been faced with a conspiracy theorist, I make sure to explain all of the details of the mediation process, both before we go through it, and while we are experiencing the process.

Third, don’t directly address the topic that may cause offense to the conspiracy theorist.  If you can, talk around the topic.  For example, in some cases, no matter what proof you provide, the party may never believe that his or her position is wrong.  In that case, don’t attack the position or its premise.  Find something to address the concern you have that is not related to the topic that person so fervently believes in.  For example, in researching this article, I found many posts regarding a conspiracy by the government to allow 9/11.  Instead of fighting whether it was a conspiracy, assume it was a conspiracy and now address the next issue.  Even if it was a conspiracy, it doesn’t necessarily change how the others will look at it, because the conspiracy theorists are so good that they have convinced the world that this event happened.

Fourth, agree to disagree.  If logic and reasoning is not going to work, just respect the difference and move on.

Finally, treat the conspiracy theorist with respect and address the problem.  Do not attack the conspiracy theorist or his or her theories.  Attacking the beliefs or views will not help solve the overall problem.

There are many other tactics that can be used to address these concerns either as a mediator or as a party or attorney in mediation.  How have you handled the conspiracy theorist in the room?