The Sunday magazine of the February 28, 2010 New York Times contains an interesting article entitled “Depression’s Upside” by Jonah Lehrer. Mr. Lehrer is the author of How We Decide  which is a great book and is the subject of my  January 15, 2010 blog.
 

      As Mr. Lehrer explains, it seems that depression may be a good thing, after all. While granted, depression has been classified as a mental illness which causes its victim either to stop eating or to start eating too much, lose his/her inclination for sex, have difficulty sleeping and in general be very tired even though he/she is doing less and less, its “rumination” feature is actually beneficial. 
 

      According to evolutionary psychiatrist, Andy Thompson (at the University of Virginia) and Paul Andrews, an evolutionary psychologist at Virginia Commonwealth University, the “thought process” of rumination defines this order. Those who are depressed “fixate on their flaws and problems, thus extending their negative moods” or “chew over” (i.e. ruminate) their thoughts continuously. (Id. at 2). Because rumination takes control of a person’s stream of consciousness, that person will perform poorly on “tests for memory and executive function, especially when the task involves lots of information.” (Id. at 3).
 

      But, perhaps there is a purpose to this rumination. This is what Thompson and Andrews wanted to determine. As evolutionary psychiatrists and psychologists, they believed that the mind is actually “a fine-tuned machine that is not prone to pointless programming bugs.” Thus, while rumination is a response to a specific psychological blow, such as a death, a job layoff or a divorce, they thought that perhaps some good comes out of rumination or that there is, indeed, a net mental benefit from rumination. (Id.) What they found is that it “leads to an extremely analytical style of thinking.” (Id. at 4):
         

        “. . .rumination is largely rooted in working memory, a kind of mental scratchpad that allows us to “work” with all the information stuck in consciousness. When people rely on working memory. . . – they tend to think in a more deliberate fashion, breaking down their complex problems into their simpler parts.” (Id.)

       Because the deliberative thought process is “slow, tiresome and prone to distraction,” our brains grow tired very quickly, and we give up. But the state of depression with its rumination feature allows us to discard all distractions – like eating, sex and sleep – and focus on solving a difficult, if not mind boggling, problems. In short, “wisdom isn’t cheap, and we pay for it with pain.” (Id.)
     

      As Mr. Lehrer points out, obviously, there are many who disagree with this theory that, from an evolutionary perspective, depression is a good thing because it causes us to avoid distractions and focus on solving complex problems.

      But, this theory led me to “ruminate” whether depression is a good or bad thing in the context of resolving disputes. In many of my mediations, I have witnessed parties go through the five stages of grief: denial, bargaining, anger, depression and acceptance (On Death & Dying by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross) and soon realized that the parties will not reach a resolution until they reach “acceptance.” But to arrive at that stage, they must pass through the “depression” stage. 
 

      This article on depression or the fourth-stage – explains that there is a lot more to “depression” than the “I don’t care anymore about anything” attitude that is its hallmark. It actually allows a person to focus on the issue, analyze it and come up with a solution that leads her to the next and final stage: acceptance.
 

      So, while superficially, depression seems to militate against resolving disputes, its rumination feature actually enhances the process, if not the outcome. I guess it is somewhat of an oxymoron.
 

       . . .Just something to think about.

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

       Trust – for a mediator, this is a very important issue.  At the beginning of  each mediation, a mediator must gain and build the trust of the parties. If the parties do not trust the mediator, they will place no value in the assistance she provides to facilitate a resolution.  Her services and presence will be useless.

      Well, it seems that “trust” is nothing more than a chemical response.  In an article entitled “The Neurobiology of Trust”  by Paul J. Zak published in the June 2008 edition of the Scientific American, the author describes experiments conducted by researchers to determine how we decide to trust someone.  This research  showed “… that an ancient and simple molecule in the brain – oxytocin –plays a major role in the process.”  Id. at 88.  Oxytocin is a short protein or peptide which serves as a neurotransmitter or signaling molecule.  Somehow, oxytocin facilitates cooperation – which requires trust.  Id. at 89.

      To test this, researchers developed an experiment called the “trust game.”  In this experiment, each participant is given $10 for agreeing to participate.  Then the participants are randomly assigned into pairs, although they will have no direct communication with each other.  In each pair, one participant is designated “Subject 1” while the other is designated “Subject 2.”  Then a computer asks Subject 1 if she wishes to send some of her $10 to Subject 2.  The amount sent by Subject 1 is, in reality, tripled in the account for Subject 2 so that if Subject 1 decides to send $2, the account for Subject 2 will contain $6 + the initial $10 deposit or $16 total.

      Then, the computer asks Subject 2 if she wishes to return some of the money to Subject 1, advising that Subject 2 is not required to send any money back and that her identity will remain undisclosed.  If Subject 2 does decide to send some money back, only  that actual amount   is returned; it is not tripled.

       Immediately, after making these decisions, the participants’ blood was tested for oxytocin levels.  ( Id. at 90-91).

      Pointing out that the consensus “. . .among experimental economists is that the initial transfer measures trust, whereas the return transfer gauges trustworthiness” (Id. at 91), the researchers found “that being trusted by Subject 1s would induce an oxytocin rise and that those who received greater sums from subjects would experience the greatest increases.”  Id.  In fact, “. . .when people were shown greater trust in the form of more money, their brains released more oxytocin.”  (Id).  The researchers also found “. . .that Subject 2s with high levels of oxytocin were more trustworthy – that is, they sent more money back to Subject 1s who had trusted them.  Receiving a sign of trust appears to make people feel positive about strangers who have trusted them.”  (Id at 91).

       In short,

        “Oxytocin constitutes a positive side of personal interactions;  it literally      feels good when someone seem to trust you, and this recognition motivates you to reciprocate.”  (Id at 92).

      Concomitantly, distrust causes a chemical reaction which in men will cause aggression.  That is, “men have an aggressive response to being distrusted.”  (Id).   Women do not like being distrusted either, but their response is a bit “cooler” than those of men.  (Id at 94-95).

      So. . .how does this relate to mediation and resolving disputes. . ..  Simple!  To gain someone’s trust, one must give something of value (which could include giving of herself) so that the other person will deem her trustworthy, by reciprocating and giving something back.  This “trust game” applies not only to the mediator but to the parties themselves.  If the parties “trust” each other and/or deem the other as “trustworthy”, they will find it easier to settle their dispute.  So, they, too, should play the “trust game”; one party giving something to the other,  (including  giving of herself) so that the other party deems her trustworthy by reciprocating and giving something back.

      Thus it seems that our decision whether to trust someone is nothing more than a chemical response based on the level of oxytocin in our brain!

       . . .Just something to think about.

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

      Often, during a mediation, I have asked a party if she wants to make the first offer. More times than not, especially if it is the defendant, the party tells me that she wants the other party to go  first on the rationale that it is a sign of weakness or some similar explanation for her to make the opening offer.

       In response, I often explain that just the opposite is true: she who makes the first offer often has the advantage: she sets the parameters of the negotiations as well as affecting the other party’s expectations. In sum, she has the “upper hand” or the leverage in the negotiation.

       This notion of “anchoring” was the topic of Linda Bulmash’s latest Negotiation Tips (Los Angeles County Bar Association Vol III, No. 4 – January 2010) entitled “Making the First Offer Can Be the Smart Move.”(LACBA “Negoiation Tips” (January 2010) )Ms. Bulmash notes that the best negotiators think in terms of affecting the other party’s expectations in deciding whether to make the first offer:

      “First offers act as an anchor point, drawing the other side into your suggested range. Studies have shown that 85 percent of the time, first offers correlate with the final outcomes. Even if the first offer is not within a reasonable range, it still affects the negotiation’s outcome.”

       ”For those of us who think we are hip to the game, savvy and sophisticated, the impact of first offers shows that we are still suggestible. As proof of that theory, participants in a college study were asked to state their Social Security number before estimating the number of physicians in Manhattan. They all picked numbers that correlated with and were close to their Social Security number.”

      ”Before deciding whether to make the first offer, ask yourself:
          

       1. What do I want to achieve by making this offer?
      

       2. Do I have enough information to make this offer?
      

       3. How do I want to affect the other side’s expectations?
     

       4. How will this offer affect the other side’s expectations?
     

       5. What kind of offers and counteroffers do I need to make to move strategically closer to my bottom line?
     

       6. Should my offer be firm or flexible?

       7. How can I propose the offers”

      So, in your next negotiation, instead of automatically rejecting the notion of making the first offer, take a moment and look at the long range effect of your going first: how will it affect the expectations of the other side. Will your first offer, effectively, act as an anchor so that you resolve the matter within your  range of expectations?

      . . .Just something to think about.

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

       In the latest edition of the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s Negotiation Tips ( Negotiation Tips ), Linda Bulmash addresses an often reoccurring issue in mediations: how to keep a negotiation from collapsing when an impasse occurs.

       Her most import tip is to control your emotions and maintain your cool. That is, think with your head, not your heart. Her other tips include:

      1. Interrupt the process. Call for a time out that gives everyone time for tempers to cool.

      2. Explore the perspective of those seated at the other side of the table. Continually question yourself and put yourself in the position of the others to try to determine why they are behaving this way. Then you can focus on their underlying needs rather than reacting to their behavior.

      3. Paraphrase what you have heard. “What I heard you say…. Am I correct?”

      4. Inquire by asking open–ended questions that require the other side to elaborate.

     5. Name the issue and call it as you see it: “Criticizing me or attacking my client does not seem the best way to build an agreement to resolve our differences.”

      6. Ask a question directly about the behavior. For example, when someone presents a take it or leave it “offer,” respond by saying, “What do you hope to accomplish when you threaten to walk away while we still have so many issues to discuss?”

      7. Correct an impression. If others accuse you of not listening or being uninterested in their opinion, respond by saying, “I did not mean to seem uninterested. I am very interested and would like to hear more.”

      8. Divert and refocus. When tempers flare, you can respond by saying, “I think we are getting distracted. Let’s try to get back on track.”

     9. Advocate and present your own interests and needs to the opponents but frame it in terms of answering their WIIFM (What’s in It for Me). 

      The first tip is a familiar one: “Interrupt the Process” – take a recess from the negotiation and go for a walk or engage in some other activity. As I have noted in earlier blogs – sometimes – the “ah hah” moment comes precisely because and when we are not thinking about an issue but are focused on something else “Sleeping on it” often does wonders for issue resolving!

      The second tip is just as vital: look at the issue from the other’s viewpoint. Doing so will help you understand what is important to the other party and why. This then allows you to rethink your position and perhaps alter it so that common ground can be found.

      This tip leads to the next; repeat back to the person what she just said. By doing so, that person can verify that she did,  indeed, say what she thought and intended to say and you can verify that you heard it correctly.
 

        Further, by asking open-ended questions (tip 4), you gain a lot of information which is always useful on in reaching a compromise.
 

      Tip no. 8 is another crucial tip in overcoming impasse: divert and refocus. Point out that the parties are getting side tracked by their emotions and suggest strongly that everyone stays focused on the issues.

       From my own experience as a mediator, I have found that these tips do work!

       So, the next time your negotiations get bogged down, think about and invoke these tips. They will help get you out of the quagmire and on to firm ground.

       . . .Just something to think about!

If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button

       On Saturday, November 7, 2009, Dr. Daniel Druckman, Professor of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia delivered the 5th Annual L. Randolph Lowry Lecture at Southern California Mediation Association’s 21st Annual Conference.
 

      His lecture was taken from his article Intuition or Counter-Intuition? The Science behind the Art of Negotiation published in the October 2009 issue of the Negotiation Journal (at pp. 431-448). In the limited amount of available time, Dr. Druckman  highlighted the metaphors for negotiation and some counter-intuitive findings regarding negotiation.
 

      First, negotiation can take many forms and is used in varied contexts, be it from our own daily lives, domestically, regionally, internationally, or even globally.
 

      To best describe the different forms of negotiation, Dr. Druckman uses metaphors. For example, some negotiators see negotiation  as a game, while others view it as a discourse.  Still, others,  see negotiation as a tool for managing organizations. (p. 433.)
 

      Some view negotiation as a puzzle to be solved with the familiar example being the ‘prisoner’s dilemma”. Others view negotiation as a bargaining contest such as occurs in haggling in the market place (p. 433).
 In addition, negotiation can be viewed as diplomacy politics in which “negotiation is viewed as a microcosm of the larger game of international politics” (p. 434).
 

      In short, there is not just one facet to negotiation: it has many faces, and how it is used depends heavily on the context in which it is used: the market place, within organizations, between states, between countries, or globally.
 

      Of equal interest are Dr. Druckman’s counter-intuitive findings. Each challenges “. . . the  popular wisdom and illuminate[s] the complexity of negotiating behavior”.(p. 437).

      The first involves the notion, to negotiate or not to negotiate: “A continuous negotiation process can increase the chances of getting a settlement.  It can also serve to perpetuate impasse” (p.437). Thus, it is important to know when to negotiate and when to stop. According to research, negotiations should continue as long as” momentum is building towards an agreement” but should stop” if new incompatibilities are discovered” which will serve only to heighten the conflict. (p. 437.)

       At the same time, “impasse can turn a frozen negotiation around.” It is often a “wake-up call” to negotiators to perhaps take a “time out” to reframe issues or develop new procedures that can lead to progress. (p. 437)

       A second counter-intuitive finding is that some times, “developing negotiating alternatives can have negative effects that outweigh the “good” agreement” (p. 438). That is, generating too many alternatives may produce a less than ideal agreement. Thus, determining the best alternatives to a negotiated agreement  or BATNA may actually be detrimental.

       A third counter-intuitive finding is that “exchanging too much information during negotiation can have the unforeseen consequences of revealing new incompatibilities that can escalate” rather than resolve, the dispute (p. 438).

       Similarly,  “too much flexibility in concession making may have negative implications for group loyalty” (p. 438).  According to Dr. Druckman, research has revealed that “quick concessions, even if mutual, often lead to suboptimal agreements.” Dr. Druckman calls this the “Winner’s Curse” (p. 438).

       The final counter-intuitive finding discussed involves emotional expressions:

      “. . . displays  of anger can be helpful when they reveal strongly felt values or interests and are directed at the task rather than at the other person(s). Strong expressions can serve to define or anchor a bargaining range if they are regarded as authentic signals rather than as distracting “noise” (p. 438).

       Similarly, firm stances can be effective, as well:” Standing firm on principles early in a negotiation but showing flexibility on positions later can elicit more concessions. . . ” (p. 438). (Or, similarly,  as my mediation trainers have often said: “be firm in the position but soft on the people.”)
 

       Dr. Druckman’s  brief discussion of the different metaphors for negotiation and the findings on counter-intuitive negotiation tactics gave me a lot to think about and to incorporate into my mediation practice.

       I hope that they provide food for thought for you as well!

       . . . Just something to think about!

 If you enjoy this blog, and want to receive it weekly via RSS Feed, click here: http://www.pgpmediation.com/feed/ or via FeedBurner email subscription, then enter your email address under the word “Subscribe” to the above right and click on the “Subscribe” button