They say that to err is human, to forgive divine. But somewhere in the rocky terrain between error and forgiveness lies the apology–the essential act that facilitates forgiveness and produces closure.

Increasingly hospitals are discovering that apologies, coupled with full disclosure, may be in fact be the best prescription for reducing malpractice claims and liability costs, implementing policies that encourage physicians to apologize to patients for medical errors.

Today’s Boston Globe editorial pages feature an op-ed piece entitled “When doctors say they’re sorry“, by Doug Wojcieszak, a spokesperson for the Sorry Works! Coalition, an organization committed to educating physicians, patients and their families, hospital administrators, insurance companies, attorneys, and others about the numerous benefits an apology can confer for all the stakeholders in issues involving the provision of medical care.

Such policies typically provide for an investigation to determine whether standards of medical care were followed, and utilize a combination of apology; full disclosure of medical records, information and facts to patients and their families; and the offer of compensation if an investigation has determined that standards of medical care were not met. Such policies, which seek to create partnerships between medical caregivers and patients in resolving problems arising out of medical accidents, are premised upon honesty, trust, accountability, and communication.

For further information, visit the web site for Sorry Works!, where numerous materials, links and resources are available regarding apology policies. (ADR practitioners take note: the web site includes a link to information on a healthcare ombuds and mediation program.)

It’s always good to be back (particularly since my business trip’s return flight was booked with Northwest Airlines, now in the sixth day of its mechanics’ strike and experiencing a host of problems since the strike began on Saturday).

Ten days away from my office with only sporadic Internet access in combination with a hectic work schedule meant that I had a bajillion emails and phone calls to return when I got back to Boston—hence my delay in resuming my editorial responsibilities here at Online Guide to Mediation. The demands of work, alas, relentlessly assert themselves.

Thanks to loyal regular readers who continued to stop by and to those who discovered this blog and made themselves at home here while I was away.

Blogging as a pursuit holds many joys for the blogger (which hopefully in the end translates into rewards for the reader as well). One of the greatest of course and most irresistible are the discoveries which researching articles so frequently yields—the Internet scavenger hunts which may lead to the anticipated destination but which often bring us instead to unexpected places.

Here are some web sites for your reading pleasure, one related directly to ADR, one involving the nexus among culture, science, technology, and law, and a related handful of others devoted to the eradication of jargon (a cause which ADR professionals, who promote better communication, would undoubtedly support).

Conflict Resolution Audio blog a ground-breaking first of its kind

In search of inspiration upon my return and as a way to reimmerse myself in ADR blogging, the first web site I stopped by was Bill Warters’ Campus-ADR Tech Blog, one of my personal favorites. Bill, who is always in pursuit of the innovative, particularly at the crossroads of technology, education, and ADR, also produces Conflict Learning Audio, a pioneering audio blog offering podcasts on “conflict resolution, learning objects and information technology”. As the world’s first audio blog devoted to ADR, it represents an important milestone for our field. A recent podcast reviews several ADR blogs, including yours truly (thanks, Bill, for the nice comments about this blog–it’s much appreciated).

A law blog reports from the trenches of the culture wars

One of the topics I report on, usually but not always in conjunction with its connection to ADR, is the law (not surprising, given the fact that I’m an attorney—or used to be in my former professional life). For me as both attorney and blogger one of the more intriguing developments in the legal field has been the rapid and successful development of law blogs as a genre. My sidebar (over there on the right) includes links to a number of law blogs.

One that is worth a regular visit is the provocatively titled Dispatches from the Culture Wars, written by culture war correspondent Ed Brayton. This controversial, take-no-prisoners blog with a pro-science slant serves up plenty of steaming hot argument, debate, and reflection on the “interface of science, religion, law and culture”, as Ed takes on topics ranging from intelligent design to judicial activism.

Visitors will find plenty of feisty and entertaining sparring between Ed and those who visit and leave comments. (Hey, just because I’m a mediator doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a good spirited debate.)

(By the way, speaking of intelligent design, for a humorous and utterly sacrilegious parody of intelligent design theory, visit the web site for the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.)

Weapons of mass miscommunication: putting an end to jargon

Monica Bay, law blogger extraordinaire and publisher of The Common Scold, has declared war on jargon, targeting the overuse of the word “solutions” in corporate press releases. Scroll down to see the “penalty box” in her right nav bar where Monica names names and displays examples. (I should confess that my company’s name is Partnering Solutions, LLC, for which I hope Monica can find it in her heart to forgive me–after all, I’ve forgiven her for being a Yankees fan. Besides, in the ADR business, solutions are what it’s all about.)

Those of you who are interested in jargon as a corporate phenomenon should drop by Clive Thompson’s Collision Detection which reports on political, technological, cultural, and social anomalies. A recent post about business jargon features links to two diametrically opposed software programs—Bullfighter, which enables users to conduct search-and-destroy missions to remove jargon from documents, and White Smoke, a tool for the verbally challenged which provides “context-related language enrichment” (translation: turns plain English into incomprehensible babble).

As much as I would enjoy devoting all my waking hours to blogging, I have a day job that demands my attention. In fact, I’m on my way out of town on business and will have only limited access to the Internet while I’m away, so I won’t be blogging until my return on Monday, August 22.

In the meantime there’s still plenty of stuff here for your reading pleasure. You need look no further than my sidebar, over there on the right. What you’ll find includes:

A search tool.

This blog has a search feature—if there’s something in particular you’re looking for, or an article you’d like to re-read, simply enter your search word or phrase and hit “enter”. You can find the search tool both in the sidebar and conveniently located right at the top of the page.

Previous posts.

Check out previous posts. Although Blogger software displays in the sidebar links to the 10 most recent posts only, if you keep scrolling down on the home page, you’ll discover a great deal more than that. Three of July and August’s most frequently visited posts include these titles:

BECOMING A MEDIATOR: What you should know before you change careers

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION’S INFLUENCE OFFERS NEW DIRECTIONS FOR THE PRACTICE OF LAW

WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE: Putting an end to coercive judicial settlement practices

Online Guide to Mediation’s archives.

Since I launched Online Guide to Mediation back in January of this year, I’ve published some 143 posts. Feel free to peruse the archives which are arranged in chronological order by month. You’ll find everything from information on choosing a mediation training, to creative ideas for collaborative problem-solving, to the influences of culture on negotiation.

Blogs I’m reading.

My blogroll is full of blogs that offer plenty of great reading, some ADR-related, many not. If you’re looking for news and commentary on mediation and mediation practice issues, be sure to visit Perry Itkin’s blog, Florida Mediator. And if you’re looking for ideas on jumpstarting a mediation practice, visit Dina Beach Lynch’s Mediation Mensch.

Have a great week, everybody. And, of course, thanks as always for stopping by.

As even casual visitors to the Internet know, the web makes the world a more intimate place. Technology provides a medium through which individuals who share professions, politics, amusements, aspirations, or obsessions—regardless of their geographical proximity—can achieve connection and community. As I have observed here before, this makes the Internet an ideal space for those of us whose work is anchored in ADR practice or philosophy.

With that in mind, I’m asking my readers for help with a new project—a project that will create an interactive map of alternative dispute resolution practitioners around the globe.

Inspiration came this morning while I was surfing the web for material for this blog. This morning’s travels took me to Blawg Review (a web site well worth visiting for its weekly updates on the latest buzz in the law blog world).

Blawg Review has just added a new feature to its sidebar—a Guest Map courtesy of Google technology. The Guest Map functions as a kind of geographical guestbook, which visitors can sign by selecting and pinpointing their location on a world map. Visitors may then add greetings and provide links to their own blogs or web sites.

Intrigued by the idea of a guestbook in atlas form, I was inspired to create an Alternative Dispute Resolution World Map for visitors to this blog to set their mark upon.

To add yourself to the ADR World Map, first find your location using the map’s zoom and positioning tools on the upper left corner of the Guestmap screen, and then zoom in to street level. (For those of you who wish to be discreet about your precise location, zoom in only to the city or state level—it’s up to you to choose the level of accuracy in pinpointing your location.) Then click to place your icon, and add your name, your greeting, and the URL for your blog or web site.

My readers and visitors arrive here from all over the world—I invite you all to stand up and be counted. And I would of course be most grateful if you could pass this along to your colleagues and friends, encouraging them to add themselves to this map.

By the way, please add your web site to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Web Ring, which my friend and colleague Dina Beach Lynch and I set up this summer. The web ring is open to anyone with an interest in alternative dispute resolution or who is ADR-friendly. It’s absolutely free—and of course a great way to increase your visibility on the web. For more information about the ADR Web Ring, click here to visit the web ring portal.

At the American Bar Association’s Annual Meeting in Chicago, the ABA House of Delegates voted to accept the resolution jointly recommended by the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution and the Section of Litigation to adopt as ABA policy the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators. This vote is momentous for the dispute resolution community here in the U.S. because it signifies the broad acceptance of a model standard for mediator conduct that bears the imprimatur of three organizations which are pioneering leaders in the ADR field.

The Model Standards of Conduct, originally drafted in the early 1990’s through the collaborative efforts of the ABA, the American Arbitration Association, and the Society of Professionals in Dispute Resolution (known today as the Association for Conflict Resolution), recently underwent numerous time- and labor-intensive revisions and improvements. The fruit of these efforts was presented to the ABA House of Delegates which yesterday voted unanimously to adopt these Standards.

The complete text of the original 1994 version of the Standards, along with the text of the April 10, 2005 revision, may be found here at the web site of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.

A list of all of the ABA’s policies regarding alternative dispute resolution is available at the web site for the ABA Section of Dispute Resolution.

Voice of America reports today that The Shape of the Future, a first-of-its-kind, two-part television documentary, was broadcast simultaneously in Hebrew and Arabic by Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab television stations. The Shape of the Future features interviews with Israelis and Palestinians, giving all sides to this ongoing conflict the opportunity to discuss their fears, future hopes, and describe potential solutions that could end the impasse.

What is unique about this documentary is its focus: rather than emphasizing the past, this documentary spotlights the future.

The Shape of the Future was produced by Search for Common Ground, an organization “dedicated to transforming how the world deals with conflict”. Established in 1982, and with headquarters in both Brussels and Washington, D.C., Search for Common Ground uses numerous techniques and tools—media of all kinds, mediation, training, community organizing, and even sports and the arts—to find ways to address even intractable conflicts and achieve its mission of fostering dialogue, reducing violence, and promoting conflict resolution.

Clips of the documentary can be seen at The Shape of the Future web site. To order copies of the documentary in either VHS or DVD format, click here.

There is also available an interview with John Marks, the producer of The Shape of the Future, and founder and president of Search for Common Ground, about the making of this documentary and the inspiration behind it, which you can read by visiting here.

The Nashua (New Hampshire) Telegraph reported today on a new law which takes effect on October 1, 2005, and significantly transforms divorce and child custody law in the Granite State.

Recognizing that “children do best when both parents have a stable and meaningful involvement in their lives”, the new law, dubbed the “Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act,” promotes the participation of both parents in raising children following a divorce, and codifies the use of mediation as a tool for assisting parents in developing parenting plans together.

A section of the act specifically addresses “Mediation of Cases Involving Children”. With goals that include “decreas[ing] acrimony between parties in a dispute concerning parental rights and responsibilities for minor children”, improving party satisfaction with the outcome of disputes, increasing parental participation in decision-making, and improving judicial efficiency, this section of the law allows a judge to order parties to mediation. Settlement itself, however, remains voluntary, and the law recognizes that the mediator’s function is facilitative, not adjudicative:

The mediator has no authority to make a decision or impose a settlement upon the parties. The mediator shall attempt to focus the attention of the parties upon their needs and interests rather than upon their positions. Any settlement is entirely voluntary. In the absence of settlement, the parties lose none of their rights to a resolution of their dispute through litigation.

There are provisions for circumstances in which the court need not order mediation, including undue hardship to a party, allegations of abuse or negect of a minor child, and findings of domestic violence.

Click here for the full text of the new law.

It’s great to know that your friends are watching out for you. Ericka Gray tipped me off today about an important decision concerning mediation confidentiality, handed down on Friday by the New Jersey Supreme Court. This is the first case in New Jersey to consider the issues of confidentiality and privilege under New Jersey’s recently enacted Uniform Mediation Act (”UMA”).

In State of New Jersey v. Carl Williams, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a mediator appointed to mediate by the municipal court in a harassment dispute could not later be compelled to testify in a subsequent criminal proceeding on behalf of one of the parties in the mediation.

In considering the case, the court invited amicus briefs from the New Jersey State Bar Association and the New Jersey Committee on Dispute Resolution. Although the Uniform Mediation Act was enacted after a lower court had excluded the mediator’s testimony, nonetheless, at the urging of the two amici, the Court agreed “that the UMA principles, in general, are an appropriate analytical framework for the determination whether defendant can overcome the mediator’s privilege not to testify.”

The court’s decision is important in that it recognizes how central confidentiality is to the integrity of the mediation process and how critical it is to safeguard public trust and confidence in mediated settlement discussions.

The decision is available here for your reading pleasure, courtesy of the Rutgers School of Law Library. (Thanks again, Ericka. I owe you one.)

When I was a kid, one of my mother’s favorite maxims was, “It never hurts to ask.” It was an adage she lived by, testing it repeatedly in restaurants, in motels during family vacations, in the meat department at the local supermarket, with contractors doing work on the house. What never ceased to astonish me were both her courage in asking and the readiness with which people said yes to her. Her daring unfailingly resulted in better tables, a room with a view, a choicer cut of meat, or a lower price on linoleum.

Last week I published a post here about gender differences in negotiation, a subject I’m revisiting today. While there is statistical evidence that in certain circumstances men negotiate more favorable outcomes for themselves than do women, and while it is undisputed that failure to or difficulty in negotiating can have serious economic and social repercussions for women, it’s not just women who may be shortchanging themselves when it comes to negotiation.

I spoke with my friend Moshe Cohen, president of The Negotiating Table, and a lecturer in the Organizational Behavior Department at Boston University School of Management. Moshe is also a mediator, a trainer, and a much-sought-after negotiation coach here in Boston and nationally.

What Moshe has noticed in his work as teacher and mediator is that it’s not just women who find negotiating tough. Men do, too. Both genders have a very hard time asking for what they want.

What accounts for this? In Moshe’s experience, people are overly concerned about how they will be perceived if they ask people for what they want. They want people to like them. They don’t want to rock the boat. They worry about what others will think of them later. Worst of all, what if the other person says no? Men and women alike are often terrified of asking for what they want.

My own professional and personal experience bears this out. Generally speaking, women have no more difficulty talking about what they want, why they want it, and how they’re going to get it than do men—which is to say, some of them are good at it and some of them aren’t, in about the same ratio. (What I’ve also found, unsurprisingly, is that the better prepared for negotiation any party is, regardless of their gender, the better they’ll do, and the easier it is for them to ask for what they need.)

To help them overcome their fear of asking, Moshe gives his negotiation students an assignment called “The 10 No’s”. Adapted from Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases by Roy J. Lewicki et al., this exercise requires participants to go out and ask for things, keeping track of the number of no’s they receive until they have 10.

What is particularly instructive about this exercise is the fact that accumulating 10 no’s is actually extremely difficult. Students of both genders discover that it’s far more likely that people will say “yes” instead–an astonishing revelation.

Over the years Moshe’s students have reported all kinds of benefits flowing from their participation in this exercise: salary increases, job promotions, rent reductions, better deals on consumer goods, you name it.

I encountered a similar story in the introduction to Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever’s book, Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. A professor named Deepak Malhotra gave his students at the Kellogg School of Management an interesting assignment: to “go negotiate something in the real world.” The students, 35 of whom negotiated something for themselves and 10 of whom negotiated something for an employer, succeeded in negotiating in some cases substantial price reductions:

More significant than the amounts saved, however, was the answer the students gave when asked to name the most important tactic that enabled them to achieve such extraordinary results: “Choosing to negotiate at all.” They reported that the biggest benefit of completing the exercise was learning that they could negotiate for things (such as rental fees) that they never knew were negotiable.

So, what does all of this mean?

In order to get to yes, all of us need to begin by negotiating with ourselves. It turns out that getting to yes in the end may be much easier than getting to no. As my mother has been saying for years, it never hurts to ask.