You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘meeting’ tag.
By Steven G. Mehta
Most mediators I know prefer when the parties attend the mediation in person. In fact, I even write that attendance by phone is a poor substitute and should not be recommended. The reason, I believe and know, is that there is substantial power to having someone attend in person. There is a greater connectivety, greater ease of communication, and greater ability to develop rapport. Recently, I found some research that shed light on the power of facetime.
Researchers used the standard ultimatum game to test the theory that face to face connections would increase cooperation and dealmaking. In the ultimatum game, one participant decides how to share a sum of money with another subject. The second subject can accept or reject the allocation. In the event the split is rejected, nobody receives any money. If the split is accepted, the second participant will receive the amount offered. Although one would think that any offer is better than zero, the reality is that for the most part people tend to reject “unfair” offers that are too skewed toward the first person. Most of the allocations are within 10% of a 50-50 split. Usually a third of the offers are rejected as being unfair.
Researcher Al Roth added to the Ultimatum game. He required the subjects to speak face-to-face before playing the game. The interesting discovery was that regardless of the conversation topics, the people that spoke before were far more likely to successfuly split the money. With the conversation, the percent of “fair” offers rose to 83%, and a mere 5% of the games resulted in failure. There was an over 30% increase in the amount of deals struck when face to face conversations took place and the amount of failed deals dropped by about 80%!
As I have indicated in my book 112 ways to Succeed in Any Negotiation or Mediation, schmoozing serves many purposes and helps to develop trust and rapport that can be utilized later in the negotiation process. As far as I know, there are no studies investigating the effect of video conferencing tools such as Apple’s Facetime, Skype, or other Video conferencing tools on the ultimatum game or dealmaking. However, I suspect that such tools would have a similar effect on the negotiated outcome. In every meeting or mediation in which I have participated in some form of videoconferencing, the parties seemed to be happier with the interactions than when they simply had a telephone conference. The reality is that although Schmoozing is as old as civilization, the new technologies can help to incorporate the concept of schmoozing over long distances.
Research Source: Neurosciencemarketing.com
By Steven G. Mehta
Worrying About Getting Business During Mediation
Once you are in a mediation, you cannot worry about what your actions will do to future business. You have to be in the present, here and now. Focus on what needs to be done to get the case settled and not on how will you be perceived if you did a specific action. Too many people focus on trying to get business rather than focusing on doing a quality job. The best way to get business is to do a good job, letting your work speak for itself.
Failing to Recognize How Time is Moving in the Other Room
On many occasions, as a mediator, you will find yourself in one room discussing the case extensively with the party or the attorney. Soon you find that 20 minutes has expired; then 30 minutes; now 45 minutes is gone by and yet you have still not gone to the other room. Although you are working, the other side doesn’t know what you were doing during this time period.
As a result, you have to make sure that you were able to manage time effectively. There are several things that need to be done regarding time management in mediation. First, you need to be able to recognize how much time to spend with a particular party. In the scenario above, you have to try to make sure that you keep up a reasonable tempo so that one side does not get anxious. If possible, try to make sure that you don’t spend too much time in one room without addressing the concerns of the other room. Second, if you’re not able to keep the pace of the mediation reasonably moving, then try to let the other side know why the pace has slowed down substantially. For example, if you’ve spent an hour in one room, let the other side know that you were facing some difficult issues and that is why it took so long. Sometimes, you will be kicked out of a room and are waiting on one side or another. If you can, take that time, to touch base with the other side and let them know that you are working on the matter.
People in mediation understand that there will be substantial time delays. However, by simply letting them know what you are doing, you will avoid having the parties arriving at different conclusions about what you’re doing with your time.
Judging the Results of the Mediation Based on the Papers Alone
This next one is submitted by KatriK on Twitter, who states “Our biggest problem is that some mediators read papers and decide then if there is going to be consiliation or not.” If the mediator is going to decide the case without having heard the case or the viewpoints, how can that be considered mediation. That sounds like arbitration. It is essential for the mediator to have an open mind. In one case, I read from one side that the other side had committed (and convicted of) perjury to assist her husband with an alibi for a home invasion rape trial. There were other nasty statements that were made about that party. I made a conscious decision to not pre-judge her and to listen to her concerns. By doing as much, she and her family thanked me for “listening” and “understanding” their concerns. She explained that she knew she made mistakes in the past, but that didn’t change what happened here. Not prejudging helped her to build trust in the process which helped to settle the case.
Never Ask to Meet a Lawyer Outside the Presence of His or Her Client, Without First Getting Permission From the Client
On many occasions, mediators forget that they are not always dealing with people who are professionals to the mediation process. Your mediation is often the first exposure for many clients to the legal process in the mediation process. They do not know what is customary for normal circumstances. However, they do know what they feel and how they feel about any particular situation.
Although the attorneys may have met with you on prior mediations, or it may be customary for you to meet with the attorneys separately, the clients often do not know that. In fact, many clients are suspicious of attorneys and the legal process. Rather than risk offending the client regarding why you need to meet with the attorneys separately, simply ask the client’s permission and explain why you need to have a private conference with the attorney.
Mistakes are inevitable. We have a few choices in mediation; one is to willingly make the mistakes and learn from them; the other is to fight the mistakes and remain stagnant. Thomas Edison didn’t make 1,000 mistakes before inventing the light bulb. He found 1,000 ways how not to make a light bulb.
By Steven G. Mehta
Previously, I discussed a tool that takes the difficulty out of scheduling dates for a mediation. That tool was the free computer program whichdateworks.com. Well, like anything in this competitive world, there is another program that helps you with scheduling. That program is When is Good.
Both When is Good and Whichdateworks are good programs. When is good allows for an additional feature of scheduling down to a 15 minute increment. For mediation, this can be very helpful. I usually book ½ days or full days starting at 9 or 2. When is Good allows me to identify just the dates that work for me and then send them to my clients. Whereas, Whichdateworks only allows you to schedule a whole day at a time. Both interfaces are quite easy to understand and pick up. One may seem easier to you depending on your taste.
Whenisgood also allows you to access the information in a few minutes and send out your schedule.
Another nice feature of When is Good is its ability to personalize messages that you will send to your invitees. In your email, you can give explicit instructions if you wish and make reference to the name of the mediation.
Both programs allow you to identify which participants can make which dates. The following is a demonstration of the results page that identifies the final date.
Unfortunately, unlike whichdateworks, When is Good does not have an automatic way of notifying all the parties of the final date and time. However, this can be handled by an additional email by your office.
Either way, When Is Good and Which Date Works both make your life immensely easier.
Mediation Matters 