Monthly Archives: June 2006

Americans more socially isolated today, new study shows

New study shows Americans are increasingly isolated sociallyTechnology has utterly transformed our ability to communicate with each other. Linking to each other both literally and figuratively, many of us connect through cellphones, email, instant messaging, blogs, and networking web sites, yet ironically we may be less connected to each other than we think.

According to a study to be published today in the American Sociological Review, Americans are becoming increasingly socially isolated. The study reveals, for example, that one quarter of Americans say that they have no one to discuss important personal issues with, and that the number of close friends that American have has dropped from three to two, according to this report from MSNBC. Meanwhile, the Boston Globe reports that this spreading isolation is experienced more acutely among those with less education, people of color, and older Americans. Unsurprisingly, those who are young, white, and well educated tend to have stronger social networks.

This study seems to vindicate the views of scholars like Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone, published in 2000, who have been saying that America’s social capital is in serious decline.

From my own experience I have to say that I’ve never felt more connected, thanks to a web of friends, family, and colleagues. One of my closest friends is someone I met through an online discussion group who lives hundreds of miles away from me. We have met face-to-face only twice, yet our regular electronic correspondence and cellphone calls sustain our close friendship. Email keeps me connected with other close friends scattered across the globe, who, incidentally, read my blog as a way to stay in touch (hi, guys!). And, speaking of blogging, my blog has introduced me to people I would never have met otherwise and has led to enduring and important friendships.

On the other hand, I recently saw a scenario unfold that demonstrated to me how deeply disconnected we as Americans have become. I had just wrapped up a presentation on mediation at a family therapy center. As I was leaving, I noticed a mother and her teenage son who had just completed their session with their family therapist. After making their next appointment, they both simultaneously whipped out their cellphones, placed calls, and began loud conversations with whoever was on the other end, both of them ignoring the conspicuously positioned “Please No Cellphones” sign in the reception area. I walked out behind them to the parking lot to my car. They both jumped into their SUV, and, as I saw them drive off, they were still talking on their cellphones.

But, alas, not to each other.

Interview with "Appreciative Intelligence" author Carol Metzker posted at Idealawg

Several weeks ago I posted about Appreciative Intelligence and Appreciative Inquiry, methods for problem solving that reframe problems into possibilities and mentioned that Stephanie West Allen, who introduced me to Appreciative Intelligence, was at that time working on an interview with Carol Metzker, author of Appreciative Intelligence: Seeing the Mighty Oak in the Acorn.

Stephanie has let me know that she has completed and posted her “Interview of Carol Metzker” on her blog, Idealawg, where you can read more about this innovative approach to tackling difficult problems.

New research makes the case for bringing litigants face to face through mediation

Mediation offers benefits when plaintiffs and defendants come face to faceIn “Consequences of Power,” an article to appear in the upcoming Harvard Negotiation Law Review, Vol. XII, 2007, and available as a PDF download at the Social Science Research Network, Tamara Relis, a postdoctoral research fellow at Columbia Law School and the London School of Economics Department of Law, reports on the results of a survey and analysis of litigation-track mediation in medical malpractice cases.

Relis finds evidentiary support for the value of bringing plaintiffs and defendants face to face, despite the efforts of counsel to keep them apart. Her findings reveal the disconnect between attorneys’ objectives and those of their clients and shows that plaintiffs and defendants are more closely aligned than one might suppose, seeking similar outcomes and desiring above all the opportunity to communicate. And Relis sees ample evidence for what mediators have long known from experience, namely that mediation meets needs beyond those which the legal system can remedy, something other than compensation or a favorable verdict. Mediation provides what Relis calls “human benefits”–understanding, forgiveness, empowerment, or merely the opportunity to be heard.

For the abstract and a link to the download in PDF, please visit the Social Science Research Network web site.

Technorati tags: ,

Time for a new business model? What clients tell mediators about attorneys

Is it time for attorneys to rethink their current business model?  Might be time for a system reboot.Just a few days ago the legal blogosphere was abuzz with the news that a federal judge in Florida had ordered two bickering attorneys to settle their differences playground-style: with a game of rock, paper, scissors. The judge mockingly described it as a new form of alternative dispute resolution.

Last week blogger Ernie Svenson invited readers to take a sobering look at what this all portends for the contemporary U.S. legal system: “Hell, when a federal judge has to tell the attorneys to use a child’s game to resolve their disputes then you know the system is completely broken.”

He’s right of course. Personally I have to wonder what their clients had to say about this (particularly when they see the bill). And as an attorney myself I have to ask, is this really the best that these lawyers could offer? An arbitrary outcome resulting from mere chance, instead of a resolution based on law, reason, and clients’ needs? And is this the business model that attorneys really want to practice?

Surely this is the last thing lawyers need right now–public confirmation that lawyers are useless at resolving disputes. Lawyers have a serious image problem. And current business practices are keeping potential clients away.

Hell, they’re not just keeping clients away, they’re driving them off in hordes. Straight to us mediators.

If you’re interested in hearing what clients have to say about attorneys, gather round. I can tell you what they’re saying to mediators like me.

Many of the people I speak to who come to mediation do so because they see themselves as refugees fleeing from a tyrannical legal system. Often they arrive with stories of attorneys more concerned with racking up billable hours than helping clients conserve assets and maximize gains. Attorneys who insisted that they should “go for the jugular” when really all they wanted to do was to remain on friendly terms with a business partner, neighbor, or soon-to-be-former spouse. Attorneys who didn’t listen or railroaded them into decisions that they couldn’t live with later. Attorneys whose combative styles cost clients money and relationships.

I’m an attorney myself. Believe me, I know that legal advice can save people time, money, and aggravation, and protects them from making uninformed decisions or unwise choices. But despite my best efforts to counter these negative perceptions, these callers remain skeptical that attorneys have anything of value to offer them. They find it far easier to believe the worst of attorneys than the best.

Some of these stories I hear are based on speculation and conjecture — on the experiences of a friend of a friend of a friend, on third-and fourth-hand stories passed on from co-workers, acquaintances, distant relations. These are urban legends which gain power and credibility in the retelling and convince the listeners that attorneys are neither helpers nor healers.

However, what is sad for our profession is the fact that the vast majority of these stories are the result of direct, personal experience. They are real. They happened.

But regardless of the source of these perceptions, the fact is that attorneys have a huge public relations problem.

Sure, we can lay some of the blame on ambulance chasers and the tort reform crowd–they’re both in opposite camps but neither one of them is doing us any good. We can point our fingers at the media which regularly vilify attorneys and rarely report on the important contributions that attorneys make in the service of law and justice.

But there’s also personal responsibility as well. And we attorneys had better start taking a long, hard look at the way we serve our clients and what our business practices have to say about us and our profession.

Better yet, keep it up. Keep antagonizing those clients.

Mediators everywhere will be grateful for the business.

Mandatory arbitration provision violates US National Labor Relations Act

Mandatory arbitration provisions held to violate National Labor Relations ActRoss Runkel in both his arbitration blog and his employment law blog reports this week that the U.S. National Labor Relations Board has held in U-Haul Company of California (NLRB 06/08/2006) (2-1) that a mandatory arbitration policy adopted by a non-union company violates the National Labor Relations Act.

Ross’s analysis of this decision and its limited implications can be found here. Ross points out that this decision does not invalidate U-Haul’s mandatory arbitration policy in it entirety, but only the extent to which it affects NLRB claims.

Regular readers of this blog know that I am no fan of mandatory arbitration provisions in consumer, health care, and employment agreements.

For the reasons why, please read either of these posts: “The company we keep: ADR, tort reform, and the erosion of justice,” and “30 years after the Pound Conference: reflections on ADR and justice in the 21st century“.

For a detailed exploration of the issues associated with mandatory arbitration provisions from the perspective of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the governmental body charged with enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws, please consider the “Policy Statement on Mandatory Binding Arbitration of Employment Discrimination Disputes as a Condition of Employment” issued in 1997. The EEOC, a supporter of voluntary alternative dispute resolution, takes the position that mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements violate the fundamental principles of employment discrimination laws in large part due to the extent to which such policies shield employers from public accountability.

Back to the future: South American indigenous Aymara people have mirror-image understanding of time

Andes inhabitants perceive time in reverseOne of the benefits mediation affords to participants is the opportunity to shift their perspective–to perceive other viewpoints or to see things in new ways.

For those of you who enjoy altering your perception to gain new understanding of the world around you, consider this:

According to this news release from the University of California, San Diego, the Aymara, an indigenous people residing in the Andes highlands, have a reverse understanding of time:

Contrary to what had been thought a cognitive universal among humans – a spatial metaphor for chronology, based partly on our bodies’ orientation and locomotion, that places the future ahead of oneself and the past behind – the Amerindian group locates this imaginary abstraction the other way around: with the past ahead and the future behind.

Appearing in the current issue of the journal Cognitive Science, the study is coauthored, with Berkeley linguistics professor Eve Sweetser, by Rafael Nunez, associate professor of cognitive science and director of the Embodied Cognition Laboratory at the University of California, San Diego.

“Until now, all the studied cultures and languages of the world – from European and Polynesian to Chinese, Japanese, Bantu and so on – have not only characterized time with properties of space, but also have all mapped the future as if it were in front of ego and the past in back. The Aymara case is the first documented to depart from the standard model,” said Nunez…

“These findings suggest that cognition of such everyday abstractions as time is at least partly a cultural phenomenon,” Nunez said. “That we construe time on a front-back axis, treating future and past as though they were locations ahead and behind, is strongly influenced by the way we move, by our dorsoventral morphology, by our frontal binocular vision, etc. Ultimately, had we been blob-ish amoeba-like creatures, we wouldn’t have had the means to create and bring forth these concepts.

“But the Aymara counter-example makes plain that there is room for cultural variation. With the same bodies – the same neuroanatomy, neurotransmitters and all – here we have a basic concept that is utterly different,” he said.

Why, however, is not entirely certain. One possibility, Nunez and Sweetser argue, is that the Aymara place a great deal of significance on whether an event or action has been seen or not seen by the speaker.

A “simple” unqualified statement like “In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue” is not possible in Aymara – the sentence would necessarily also have to specify whether the speaker had personally witnessed this or was reporting hearsay.

In a culture that privileges a distinction between seen/unseen – and known/unknown – to such an extent as to weave “evidential” requirements inextricably into its language, it makes sense to metaphorically place the known past in front of you, in your field of view, and the unknown and unknowable future behind your back.

Intrigued? To read more about this study, click here.

(Via Boing Boing.)

Million Artists to create world's largest collaborative abstract work

Million Artists web site an experiment in collaborative artFans of James Surowiecki’s The Wisdom of Crowds, a book that celebrates the problem-solving and creative powers of groups, will want to visit Million Artists, a fundraising project which invites donors to play a role in creating the world’s largest collaborative abstract art work.

Visitors to the site can choose a color, make a donation to the medical charity of their choice (either Médecins Sans Frontières or SickKids Foundation), and then place their pixel on a digital canvas.

Although it is far more likely that the end result will be more Jackson Pollock than Whistler’s Mother, so far the project has attracted 161 donors and thousands of curious visitors. (For some online fun, visit this web site that allows you to create your very own digital Jackson Pollock by moving and clicking your mouse.)

To view (or to support) this work in progress, visit the Million Artists home page. To donate, you can click here.

(Via Collision Detection.)

Justice not blind but blonde at this week's Blawg Review

Blawg Review #61 hosted by Blonde JusticeAnyone who cares deeply about the law, justice, and civil liberties should definitely check out Blawg Review #61, a collaborative effort by three smart, savvy defense attorneys–Not Guilty, Woman of the Law, and Blonde Justice, where this week’s edition of Blawg Review, the weekly review of the best in law blogging, is hosted.

Featured posts include plenty of stuff that mediators (or just about anybody) will find interesting or useful. Some examples:

Stop by Blawg Review to see a list of past and upcoming hosts and for submission guidelines.

"This I Believe": national radio project promotes listening and understanding

NPR radio program promotes respect and mutual understanding of differing beliefsDuring the 1950′s, American radio legend and journalist Edward R. Murrow hosted “This I Believe“, a radio program which invited people, ordinary and extraordinary, to share with listeners their core beliefs and values through short essays. Murrow’s hope was “to point to the common meeting grounds of beliefs, which is the essence of brotherhood and the floor of our civilization.”

National Public Radio here in the U.S. has revived Murrow’s program.

Series host Jay Allison describes the purpose behind this new series:

“As in the 1950s, this is a time when belief is dividing the nation and the world. We are not listening well, not understanding each other — we are simply disagreeing, or worse. Working in broadcast communication, there’s a responsibility to change that, to cross borders, to encourage some empathy. That possibility is what inspires me about this series.”

The goal isn’t to gain consensus or agreement about these beliefs; rather it is “to encourage people to begin the much more difficult task of developing respect for beliefs different from their own.”

Earlier this week “This I Believe” aired a moving essay read out loud by its author University of Arkansas law professor Michael Mullane.

In what does Mullane believe? That fundamental cornerstone of civil society, the rule of law. You can read his essay here.

Federal judge orders new form of ADR–rock, paper, scissors–for dueling litigants

Federal judge orders litigants to resolve differences by playing rock, paper, scissorsShould mediators be worried? You be the judge:

A federal judge in Florida, at the end of his patience with two quarrelsome litigants apparently incapable of resolving even minor issues without judicial involvement, has ordered both of them to resolve their latest disagreement over the site of an upcoming deposition by playing rock, paper, scissors.

You can view the text of the order, which, in the words of the judge, “fashion[s] a new form of alternative dispute resolution,”, here at CNN.com.

(Thanks to Bob Ambrogi for the story.)