Each year, the Southern California Mediation Association (SCMA) presents its Cloke-Millen Award also known as Peacemaker of the year award to a member of the dispute resolution community who has honored and inspired us through his/her passion and dedication to “peacemaking.”

            This year, SCMA truly went “outside the box” in determining who should be the honorees. They are 15 women, each of whom are responsible for the death of at least one person, many of whom are serving life sentences for their crime, at Valley State Prison for Women in Chowchilla, CA. (Seventy percent of them committed these homicides as a result of being in an abusive/domestic violence relationship.) They are “peacemakers” in the truest sense of the word.

            How does this story begin? Beginning in 2007, one of them, Susan Russo, wrote over 50 letters to various mediators throughout California requesting training for inmates. One of these letters landed in Laurel Kaufer’s mailbox in August 2009. The instant she read it, she was hooked. Knowing that she could not do this project alone, Ms. Kaufer called her colleague, Doug Noll, an expert in Restorative Justice, and read the letter to him. He, too, was hooked, and for the next six months, they tried to convince authorities to allow them to conduct this pro bono project. They finally obtained permission and started in April 2010 with the first group of 15 women. Twelve weeks later, these 15 women were fully trained and through mediations and peace circles, they have begun to reduce conflict and violence within the prison, slowly replacing the conflict and violence with “peace.”

            Laurel Kaufer, an SCMA member, knew of our Peacemaker award and called me (since I am the president) to nominate this first group. Once the SCMA board and I understood what was what, without hesitation, we agreed and voted to present the award to these ladies.

            Saturday, October 2, 2010 was Peace-Day – a fitting day on which to present the award. So I (with my husband playing chauffeur) went to the prison to make the presentation.

            It was a privilege and honor to make this presentation. It was also a deeply moving and profound experience. At times, in talking with these ladies, I was left speechless (which is rare for me!) These women are phenomenal. Through this program, these ladies have turned their lives around.

            Laurel Kaufer and Doug Noll taught these ladies survival skills through teaching them simple communication skills – how to listen, really listen, reframe and to communicate. By learning how to listen – and I mean truly listen to what another is saying – and then acknowledging what the speaker said by repeating it back, they are showing the speaker that she is being heard. As a consequence of learning and using this simple skill, these ladies are slowly reducing the conflict and violence within the prison. Rather than using pepper spray (which costs the state $1,000 in time and paperwork) to break up a potentially violent situation, the prison guards will call in these ladies to mediate it. . . and, at times, it works. They are slowing bringing “peace” to the prison; less conflict and violence and more  listening and reframing.

            More importantly, the outlook on life of these honorees has changed. They are no longer shut down emotionally, defensive, afraid and seeing violence as the only way to resolve things. They have a reason to greet each new day; they have hope. Through learning and employing these simple communication skills – how to listen and reframe – they have begun to trust not only each other but themselves, to open up and share their emotions and feelings. They provide each other with self-esteem and confidence by acknowledging that they are, through listening and reframing, indeed, listening to the speaker and paying attention. For the first time in their lives, these ladies feel important; someone cares about them. Their words, thoughts and feelings do matter to someone.

            It is sad that first, the social services programs let these ladies down by not  rescuing them from their domestic violence situations; that the judicial and corrections systems have let them down and that it took Laurel Kaufer and Doug Noll to come to their aid: to go outside the box, beneath the line, figure out what the needs and interests of these ladies are and to help them not only meet them but rise well above the challenge!

            After the presentation was over, I walked away from the prison deep in thought, a changed person. For most of the 275 mile drive home, I could not get what I witnessed out of my mind (and I still can’t). How could something so simple – communication skills – have such a profound and lasting impact on a prison population to the point of slowly bringing a little bit of “peace’ within its barbed wired concrete walls?

            It is oxymoronic that SCMA awards its “Peacemaker” award to 15  inmates, most of whom are serving life sentences, but, after being with these ladies, it makes perfect sense to me. I salute them: Barbara Chavez, Breanne Eldridge, Penny Greer, Shelbi Harris, Anna Humiston, Sara Jackson-Reynolds, Christine Loyd, Candace MacDonald, Mianta McKnight, Suzy Mellen, Betty Mills, Jan Ritchey, Susan Russo, Robyn Sotelo, and Marta Ulen. Congratulations!

            On November 6, 2010 at its annual conference, SCMA will formally announce this award, using video and pictures to share my profound experience with everyone. Come Join Us!

            . . .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/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

I read an article in the New York Times (August 24, 2010) about how important it is for our brain to have downtime so that it can process and absorb all of the stuff that we throw at it. Entitled “Digital Devices Deprive Brain of Needed Downtime”, the author Matt Richtel notes that with the advent of iPods, iPhones, blackberries, mobile phones, television, et cetera, it is now possible to be continuously occupied:

“Cell phones, which in the last few years have become full-fledged computers with high-speed Internet connections, let people relieve the tedium of exercising, the grocery store line, stoplights or lulls in the dinner conversation.”

 “The technology makes the tiniest windows of time entertaining and potentially productive. But scientists point to an unanticipated side effect: when people keep their brains busy with digital input, they are forfeiting downtime that could allow them to better learn and remember information, or come up with new ideas.” (Id.).

The author cites several different studies that indicate that when a person has an opportunity to process the information – such as going for a walk or a run with no distractions except what nature provides – she learns significantly better. By contrast, when she is constantly barraged with information, she will suffer from fatigue also known as information overload. (Id.)

This theme resonates with me because it is critical to resolving disputes. Disputes usually develop due to miscommunication or  lack of communication. They usually settle only after parties have exchanged information allowing the miscommunication, misunderstanding or lack of communication to be rectified. That information has to be processed by our brain; but, this and other studies I have blogged about (“Let Me “Sleep On It””( November 20, 2009) ) indicate that we need “quiet” time to do this; continuously multitasking will not allow it to happen.

Unfortunately, I have conducted many a mediation in which I have walked into a separate session only to find the attorney and/or party multitasking, e.g. using the laptop and the mobile phone at the same time. When I walk in, they naturally cease what they are doing to talk with me. But, I often wonder, how much of what I am saying, are they really absorbing? Can their brain really process all I am saying plus their telephone conversations plus the information from their laptops more or less in rapid succession? This article and other studies I have read, indicate, no.

May I make a bold suggestion?: when attending a mediation or negotiation – tune everything else out; turn off the laptop, the mobile phone and blackberry. Focus totally on the negotiation at hand and allow yourself to be totally absorbed in the moment. And, if need be. . . walk outside for a few moments so that you can absorb and process the new information that you have just been given and to clear your head.

While our technology has made great improvements in our lives, unfortunately, the hard wiring in our brains has not kept pace: its processers are and always will be much slower than the latest  Intel^® chip processor.

. . .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/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 its July 27, 2010 guest blog, Scientific American published an article by R. Douglas Fields entitled, “Of Two Minds: Listener brain patterns mirror those of the speaker.” In it, Mr. Fields discusses a study (published in the July 26, 2010 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) showing that simply by speech, a speaker “. . .can project her own brain activity onto another person” such that the neural activity of the listener will closely mirror that of the speaker. (Id.)

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging or fMRI, the researchers examined both the speaker’s and the listener’s brain activity patterns while they communicated with each other. What they found was that:

“. . . when two people communicate, neural activity over wide regions of their brains becomes almost synchronous, with the listener’s brain activity patterns mirroring those sweeping through the speaker’s brain, . . .with a short lag of about one second. If the listener, however, fails to comprehend what the speaker is trying to communicate, their brain patterns decouple.” (Id.)

The researchers found that “the better matched the listener’s brain patterns were with the speaker’s, the better the listener’s comprehension. . . .” (Id.) Thus, if a listener truly comprehends what the speaker is saying, her brain imaginary will mirror the speaker’s. If, on the other hand, the listener hasn’t a clue about what the speaker is saying, her brain imaginary will show that as well: there will be absolutely no mirroring.

The researchers also found that when a listener is fully comprehending what the speaker is saying, her own neural activity preceded that which was about to occur in the speaker’s brain. That is, she anticipated what the speaker would say next!

As explained by the lead investigator, Uri Hasson, “communication is a joint activity, by which two brains become coupled.” (Id.)

This research intrigues me because one of the basic concepts in mediation is “active listening” (which means to listen carefully to what the speaker is saying and how it is being said and then use various techniques such as paraphrasing or restating the speaker’s remarks to make sure the listener understands what is being said. It is a continuous and interactive process of listening and providing feedback.) This research confirms that there really is an “active” in active listening: when we truly listen to someone and comprehend what she says, our neural activity will closely mirror the speaker’s to the point that our own neural activity may well mirror what is about to occur next in the speaker’s brain. We can anticipate what the speaker will say next.

And, I have learned that mirroring or mimicking is one of those great tools that can lead to agreement. If one mirrors or mimics the body language of another, that other person will tend to become more receptive to you, albeit, subconsciously. That is, the more similar you are to someone, the more agreeable she will become. And the more agreeable a person is, the more likely a resolution will be reached.

So,. . . there really is something to “active” in active listening: it epitomizes a joint activity through which resolutions can be reached.

. . .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

Benedict Carey has written another interesting article in the New York Times. Entitled “The Benefits of Blowing Your Top” (July 6, 2010),  Mr. Carey discusses the effect that our emotions have on disputes.

For example, some people, such as President Obama, deal with a crisis in a very calm, cool manner which exasperates others. In contrast, other people simply and quickly blow-up at the first hint of a dispute.

This emerging field is called “emotion regulation” and looks at how we function in social situations:

“. . .Research in the past few years has found that people develop a variety of psychological tools to manage what they express in social situations, and those techniques often become subconscious, affecting interactions in unintended ways. The better that people understand their own patterns, the more likely they are to see why some emotionally charged interactions go awry – whether from too little control, or in the President’s case, perhaps too much.” (Id.)

Emotion regulation falls into two categories: “pre-emptive, occurring before an emotion is fully felt” and then “responsive” which occurs afterward. An example of the latter is feeling an emotion but, immediately, suppressing it. Two different studies showed that those who suppress their emotions encounter more stressful situations. One of the studies revealed that incoming college freshmen who “. . .scored highest on measures of emotional suppression had the hardest time making friends.” (Id.)  An often-used pre-emptive technique is to simply focus on the good and ignore the bad. One study found that:

“. . .people over 55 were much more likely than those aged 25 and under to focus on positive images when in a bad mood – thereby buoying their spirits. The younger group was more likely to focus on negative images when feeling angry or down.” (Id.)

Another study found that older persons were more adept at regulating their emotions; their mood would bounce back quickly to a good one after dealing with depressing thoughts. Consequently, the senior citizen’s ability to shrug off feelings of disgust or outrage may “strike younger people as unauthentic, even callous.” (Id.)

Lastly, but of most interest to me as a mediator, Mr. Carey points out that “people may choose the emotions they feel far more often than they are aware – and those choices, too, can trip up social interactions.” (Id.) That is, “. . .people subconsciously prime themselves to feel emotions they believe will be most useful to them in an anticipated situation.” (Id.) Such emotions are called “instrumental emotions.”

People have “an exceptional capacity to track whether the timing and morphology of an emotion is correct.” (Id.) Thus, the most socially adept individuals are able to project the emotions they want to, when they want to, using varied strategies to fit the situation at hand. (Id.) Thus, a good negotiator will display anger when appropriate and conciliation when that, too, is appropriate.

Disputes are full of emotions; in their creation and in their resolution. While most of  us dwell on the “facts” and who is “right” and who is “wrong” in our attempt to resolve a dispute, we must also focus on the “instrumental emotions” of the dispute. The use of the wrong emotion at the wrong time can cause the whole situation to blow up, or be “misread”. (Just think of the public’s reaction to Mr. Obama’s unemotional response to the BP spill: the critics urged he did not care because he did not get angry.)

So, while the substance of a dispute is important, so are the “instrumental emotions”  we bring to the negotiations: we must pause and give thought of how to present them. What emotions do we really want to display when?  Are they  in sync with the situation? With  our body language?  And, with what we are saying? Are  our emotions aligned with our underlying needs and interests? Or our they sabotaging them and thereby making the situation worse?

In truth, there is a lot more to think about than simply the “facts’ in any negotiation!

. . .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 August 2008, I posted a blog entitled “Make the Deal: You Are Better Off,” discussing a study which concluded that settling was better than going to trial.

Last week, I came upon another study which indirectly supports this earlier conclusion. Entitled “Insighful or Wishful: Lawyers’ Ability to Predict Case Outcomes,”(study) the researchers concluded that “overall, lawyers were overconfident in their predictions . . .” about success at trial and that the accuracy of their predictions “. . . did not increase with years of legal experience.” (16 Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, pp. 133-157, 133 ((No. 2.) 2010) “Study”).

The researchers were Jane Goodman-Delahunty, Charles Sturt University, Manly, New South Wales, Australia; Pär Anders Granhag, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Maria Hartwig, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York and Elizabeth F. Loftus, University of California at Irvine,California (“Researchers”).

The goal of the study was to assess “the degree of accuracy in lawyers’ forecasts of case outcomes.” (Id. at p.134). To do this, the Researchers interviewed 481 litigation attorneys including new lawyers and very experienced lawyers, in 44 states across the United States, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in civil and criminal matters. The civil practitioners comprised about 70% of the study while the criminal practitioners represented the remaining 30%. (Id. at pp. 138-140.)

The Researchers interviewed each participant approximately 6 to 12 months prior to the date that a case was expected to go to trial and then interviewed them again after the date that the case was expected to go to trial. The goal was to compare the lawyer’s prediction about the likelihood of success at trial with the actual outcome. (Id.)

Although, at the beginning, the study consisted of 337 civil cases and 144 criminal cases, the Researchers found, not surprisingly, that a large number – 59% – of the cases settled prior to trial (e.g., about  284 cases)  while only 31% were actually tried (e.g., about 149 cases). The remaining 10% were resolved by means of summary judgment, dismissal or some procedure other than trial. (Id. at pp. 139-140).

As might be expected, prior to trial, more than 50% of the lawyers opined that a favorable outcome would be reached. In reality, the outcome matched the expectation in only 32% of the cases. The outcome exceeded the expectation in 24% of the cases. But, in 44% of the cases, the lawyer was overconfident; the outcome did not meet the lawyer’s prediction. (Id. at pp. 140-141).

The Researchers also looked at the lawyers’ predictions in terms of gender: men outnumbered women four to one in the study (361 male attorneys vs. 90 female attorneys). When asked initially to predict the outcome at trial 6-12 months away, the female attorneys were just as optimistic as their male counterparts. (Id. at p. 141-142).

However, when the Researchers compared the prediction with the outcome, they found that more female attorneys achieved their minimum goal than did their male counterpart (64% vs. 55%) (Id. at p. 143). In general, what the Researchers concluded was that female attorneys were overconfident about their chances of winning at trial only when their prediction of success was high overall. Female attorneys had a much better ability (than male attorneys) to discern whether they had a moderate versus a high probability of success in winning at trial. (Id. at pp. 143).

The Researchers also determined that years of experience did not make much of a difference. The range of experience of the lawyers in the study was from 0 to 45 years. Both the less experienced lawyers and the more experienced lawyers were prone to be overconfident about their chances of winning at trial. (Id. at pp. 143-144).

Similarly, the Researchers determined that the confidence of the attorneys did not differ depending on whether  the case was a civil or criminal matter: the prediction of success at trial was about the same for both groups. (Id. at p. 145). However, where the crimes were victimless, that is, against property, the Researchers found that the lawyers were more realistic in estimating their chances of success than lawyers involved in crimes against persons. (Id. at p. 145).

In sum, when a lawyer predicts the outcome of a trial, there is a 44% chance that he is being too optimistic, . . .unless she is a woman – then chances are that she will be less overconfident and more discerning of her likelihood of success at trial.

So. . . when you are at a negotiation and your lawyer tells  you that you have a “great” chance of winning at trial. . .  take it with a grain of salt. According to this study, there is a good chance that the lawyer is being overly optimistic and overconfident!

. . . 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