How many times have we heard someone say (or that we've said), "Oh, that's just the way that I am." We usually say that when trying to explain behaviors that are not productive (or some would say annoying).
Marshall Goldsmith, blogging for Harvard Business Publishing, asks the question, "Do You Have an Excessive Need to Be Yourself?" The post can be found here.
Goldsmith's analysis, and questioning that he provided to a CEO, are terrific for mediators and ADR professionals. Part of our goal, in my opinion, is to help lead people from one place to another. This often means candid and uncomfortable conversations. But those conversations are necessary.
So the next time that we say, "Oh, that's just the way that I am," let's ask ourselves not only why are we that way, but also, what effect does our behavior have on other people? What effect do we have on people by focusing on ME instead of THEM?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
ADR and the Recession
An interesting article in today's Wall Street Journal got me thinking.
What effect is the recession having on the mediation-arbitration-alternative dispute resolution markets?
The reporting by Paulo Prada and Corey Dade analyzes funding cuts in the Georgia state court system. According to the authors, the court system's funding was cut by almost 15% last year, and future cuts are expected. One state judge is reported to have said that temporary hearings (for family custody cases) are now taking 60 days to reach instead of the usual "few weeks at most."
What does this mean for ADR professionals? I'd suggest it means opportunities.
It seems that we're told from day one in our training, and almost all of us market ourselves and the ADR process as a methodology that is cheaper, more efficient, faster, and more creative than the court system.
Now is our opportunity to prove that what we say in our training and marketing materials is true.
As ADR professionals, don't we have an opportunity--and perhaps an obligation--to assist those who are trying to access the court system to help them resolve their disputes in a less expensive, more efficient, and quicker way instead of waiting for overworked and understaffed courts to reach the case? Why can't we step in early and help folks discuss and structure the temporary orders in family cases? Why can't we help parties who are in the midst of a discovery dispute? Why can't we help the parties to resolve all of conflicts that occur during litigation, instead of just focusing on the final resolution of the entire case?
I'd like to know your thoughts.
What effect is the recession having on the mediation-arbitration-alternative dispute resolution markets?
The reporting by Paulo Prada and Corey Dade analyzes funding cuts in the Georgia state court system. According to the authors, the court system's funding was cut by almost 15% last year, and future cuts are expected. One state judge is reported to have said that temporary hearings (for family custody cases) are now taking 60 days to reach instead of the usual "few weeks at most."
What does this mean for ADR professionals? I'd suggest it means opportunities.
It seems that we're told from day one in our training, and almost all of us market ourselves and the ADR process as a methodology that is cheaper, more efficient, faster, and more creative than the court system.
Now is our opportunity to prove that what we say in our training and marketing materials is true.
As ADR professionals, don't we have an opportunity--and perhaps an obligation--to assist those who are trying to access the court system to help them resolve their disputes in a less expensive, more efficient, and quicker way instead of waiting for overworked and understaffed courts to reach the case? Why can't we step in early and help folks discuss and structure the temporary orders in family cases? Why can't we help parties who are in the midst of a discovery dispute? Why can't we help the parties to resolve all of conflicts that occur during litigation, instead of just focusing on the final resolution of the entire case?
I'd like to know your thoughts.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Mediator who isn't an Attorney
I was reflecting this morning about some of the conferences and professional meetings I have attended in the last year. In almost all instances--except those that are for attorneys only--there is a debate about mediators who don't have a law degree. The debate centers on how mediators should identify themselves.
In one of the professional organizations that I belong to, some members will introduce themselves as "non-attorney mediators." Others in that same organization express outrage at such a description.
I can't think of another profession that describes its members by what they are not: "Hello, I'm a non-doctor plumber." Or a "non-engineer architect."
There is no question that mediation, and mediators, derive a great deal of work from and through the legal system. Having judicial appointments is a good way to obtain cases. Having professional relationships with attorneys is a good source for business. The courthouse is a natural place for disputes and opportunities for resolving disputes.
But should people be identified as "non-attorney mediators?" What are the pros and cons of such a label? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
In one of the professional organizations that I belong to, some members will introduce themselves as "non-attorney mediators." Others in that same organization express outrage at such a description.
I can't think of another profession that describes its members by what they are not: "Hello, I'm a non-doctor plumber." Or a "non-engineer architect."
There is no question that mediation, and mediators, derive a great deal of work from and through the legal system. Having judicial appointments is a good way to obtain cases. Having professional relationships with attorneys is a good source for business. The courthouse is a natural place for disputes and opportunities for resolving disputes.
But should people be identified as "non-attorney mediators?" What are the pros and cons of such a label? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Nevada Foreclosure Mediation in Effect
Pursuant to state law and Supreme Court rules, the Nevada Foreclosure Mediation Program is underway, having received its first requests for mediation. Click here for the story from KTNV.
The large number of foreclosures in Nevada prompted the state legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 149 this year, which establishes a mediated foreclosure program for owner-occupied residential properties subject to foreclosure notices (only those filed after July 1, 2009). The Nevada Supreme Court adopted rules for the program. The Nevada Supreme Court's foreclosure web page may be found here.
Some interesting aspects of the program:
The large number of foreclosures in Nevada prompted the state legislature to adopt Assembly Bill 149 this year, which establishes a mediated foreclosure program for owner-occupied residential properties subject to foreclosure notices (only those filed after July 1, 2009). The Nevada Supreme Court adopted rules for the program. The Nevada Supreme Court's foreclosure web page may be found here.
Some interesting aspects of the program:
- The establishment of a new fee of $50.00 to pay for the program;
- Mediation will occur within 90 days of the date the lender records the notice of default;
- The list of mediators includes senior judges, Supreme Court settlement conference judges, and other designees;
- Mediators must be an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Nevada or otherwise "experienced" (defined as having 40 hours of classroom and role playing and 10 meditations as a co-mediator or solo mediator);
- All mediators must participate in a four hour training in mortgages, deeds of trust, promissory notes, loan modifications, and Nevada foreclosure law;
- Mediators are paid $400.00, paid equally between the parties and the fee is nonrefundable.
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Future of Consumer Arbitration
The future of consumer arbitration is uncertain with this week's developments.
Let's start with the National Arbitration Forum. NAF is (was) set up to arbitrate disputes between consumers and credit card companies. Earlier this week, NAF agreed, as part of a settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General, to cease administering arbitrations of consumer credit card disputes as of July 24, 2009. Versions of the story and settlement can be found here and here.
As part of this fallout, the American Arbitration Association announced that it will not participate in consumer-based arbitrations until new guidelines can be developed. Here's the Wall Street Journal's story and here's the release from the AAA.
On Wednesday, JP Morgan Chase announced that it would no longer engage in arbitration for credit card disputes and was examining its consumer contracts. Here's the link to that story.
With two major arbitration outfits leaving the field, and one major creditor leaving the field, what will the future look like?
While hard to tell, my initial thought is that consumer credit card disputes will be filed in courts instead of arbitration forums. That means more work for judges with heavier caseloads and more opportunities for mediators who will have access to these types of disputes that they didn't have before.
It may also lead to a larger break-up of mandatory arbitration of all consumer disputes, not just credit card disputes. There are a number of critics of arbitrating the consumer dispute (as well as a number of supporters)--too many to list them here (hint: Google "consumer arbitration unfair" for about 101,000 hits on the subject; "consumer arbitration unfair" yields about 130,000 hits). An excellent analysis of the pros and cons of consumer arbitration can be found here, a report by the Searle Center at Northwestern University Law School.
Let's start with the National Arbitration Forum. NAF is (was) set up to arbitrate disputes between consumers and credit card companies. Earlier this week, NAF agreed, as part of a settlement with the Minnesota Attorney General, to cease administering arbitrations of consumer credit card disputes as of July 24, 2009. Versions of the story and settlement can be found here and here.
As part of this fallout, the American Arbitration Association announced that it will not participate in consumer-based arbitrations until new guidelines can be developed. Here's the Wall Street Journal's story and here's the release from the AAA.
On Wednesday, JP Morgan Chase announced that it would no longer engage in arbitration for credit card disputes and was examining its consumer contracts. Here's the link to that story.
With two major arbitration outfits leaving the field, and one major creditor leaving the field, what will the future look like?
While hard to tell, my initial thought is that consumer credit card disputes will be filed in courts instead of arbitration forums. That means more work for judges with heavier caseloads and more opportunities for mediators who will have access to these types of disputes that they didn't have before.
It may also lead to a larger break-up of mandatory arbitration of all consumer disputes, not just credit card disputes. There are a number of critics of arbitrating the consumer dispute (as well as a number of supporters)--too many to list them here (hint: Google "consumer arbitration unfair" for about 101,000 hits on the subject; "consumer arbitration unfair" yields about 130,000 hits). An excellent analysis of the pros and cons of consumer arbitration can be found here, a report by the Searle Center at Northwestern University Law School.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Workplace conflict equals lower productivity
The title of this post is likely not surprising: when there is negative workplace conflict, the workplace suffers. We all know that, or at least sense that, from our everyday workplace lives.
A recent study from the Harvard Business Review quantifies the cost of workplace conflict (the authors use "rudeness" and "incivility" in the workplace, instead of "conflict"). I encourage you to read the report.
The report, which is based upon a study of "several thousand U.S. managers and employees" found that, because of workplace rudeness and incivility:
A recent study from the Harvard Business Review quantifies the cost of workplace conflict (the authors use "rudeness" and "incivility" in the workplace, instead of "conflict"). I encourage you to read the report.
The report, which is based upon a study of "several thousand U.S. managers and employees" found that, because of workplace rudeness and incivility:
- 48% of employees decreased their work effort;
- 47% decreased their time at work;
- 38% decreased their work quality;
- 66% said their performance declined;
- 80% lost work time worrying about the incident;
- 63% lost time avoiding the offender; and
- 78% said their commitment to the organization declined.
These are staggering numbers. Just imagine if I could tell you, as a manager, that I could increase your employee's work quality by 10%--would you be willing to listen? I'm sure you would. Now look at these numbers again not in negative terms, but as opportunities to increase job satisfaction, company loyalty, and employee performance. If you had a conflict resolution procedure in your work force and could slash these percentages by 10%, how much more effective, and profitable, would your workplace be? How many more satisfied employees--and customers--would you have?
How different would our workplaces be if we learned to manage conflict, and channelled that negative energy into positive, creative ways to improve productivity and commitment to the organization?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Foreclosure rules
Another article about courts implementing rules for residential foreclosures. Click here for the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)