According to a recent BusinessWeek poll, 90% of executives and middle managers believe that they perform in the top 10%. (This effect, known as positive illusion bias, is not confined to managers alone: it can be found among drivers confident that their reflexes are superior to those of others on the road, trial attorneys certain that they have the stronger case, and negotiators with an overinflated sense of their own prowess at the table.)

Given how widespread this phenomenon is, and how fallible then our judgment can be about the utility of our ideas and the strength of our abilities, many of us are undoubtedly in need of a little healthy perspective-taking when it comes to the decisions we make.

Just in time comes the latest edition of the Harvard Business School’s Working Knowledge newsletter with an article on the importance of “Encouraging Dissent in Decision-Making“.

Dissent asks the hard questions, anticipates problems, and prevents mistakes–mistakes which can otherwise prove costly:

Consider the costs to organizations, large and small, when dissent does not or cannot surface: Abjuring rigorous debate about its merits, a youthful president John F. Kennedy essentially rubber-stamped a 1961 plan to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, resulting in one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy fiascoes in decades. During a 1996 commercial expedition to the summit of Mt. Everest, several climbers, including two of the world’s most experienced professionals, died in part because junior team members didn’t speak up when their expert leaders ignored their own core operating principles surrounding safety. In 2003, NASA engineers were reluctant to challenge long-held beliefs that foam strikes incurred during the launch of the space shuttle Columbia posed no risk to its fuselage.

Consider that the next time someone disagrees with you.

(Thanks to Thoughts from a Management Lawyer for the poll results.)

(Photo credit: Javier Taboada.)

For some mediators, whose work depends upon face-to-face conversations, the world of online dispute resolution (ODR) can seem coldly impersonal.

I have heard some argue that our work in fact requires the heat that flesh and blood alone can generate — the warmth of compassion, anger’s fire. And that we inhabit the real world, grapple with real-world disputes which demand solutions that only the real world can hold. Others, not mediators only, have argued that technology has depleted our social capital, fraying the connections between us.

If you’re not sure how ODR fits into your understanding of mediation or the resolution of disputes, then consider these two articles which make the case in different ways for ODR–not as a panacea, but as a legitimate and powerful avenue for justice or problem solving:

“A new face for small claims“, an op-ed piece in the Boston Globe by Ethan Katsh and Jeffrey Aresty, which envisions a world in which time and location constitute no barrier to those who seek access to justice in small claims courts, and

“Settling It On the Web“, an article from the ABA Journal, which provides one of the best and most thorough explanations of ODR–with an honest acknowledgment of its limitations–that I have yet read.

National Center for Technology and Dispute Resolution together with InternetBar.org is hosting the 10th Annual ODR Cyberweek, an all-online conference exploring the application of technology to dispute resolution and beyond.
Registration is free for the synchronous and asynchronous events which anyone with a computer and an internet connection can participate in. The program is still under development but further details will be available soon.

Technophobes, have no fear: Cyberweek events are attended by friendly, knowledgeable people from all over the world who are always glad to answer questions. (Good rule of thumb: the only dumb question is the one you don’t ask.)

If you’re at all curious to explore the crossroads of digital technology and human interaction, and want to discover innovative ways to resolve disputes and build better access to justice, then by all means join in.

Best of all, you can catch a glimpse of familiar faces in the crowd: watch out for Vickie Pynchon, Gini Nelson, Geoff Sharp, Colin Rule, Robert Ambrogi, and me, just to name a few.

This week’s Blawg Review, the review of the best in legal blogging hosted each week at a different blog, marks an important milestone: it is the first Blawg Review hosted in Ireland.

Host Daithí Mac Síthigh is a graduate student at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, and publishes the blog Lex Ferenda, where he explores his interests–and demonstrates his considerable knowledge– in cyberlaw, media, and intellectual property.

Curious about the meaning of the name of Daithí’s blog? The wise and anonymous editor of Blawg Review tells us that

Lex ferenda (also called de lege ferenda) is a Latin expression that means “what the law ought to be” (as opposed to lex lata, “the law as it exists”).

(But those of you who still remember your high school Latin or have your old law school dictionary handy probably knew that already.)

Click here to enjoy Blawg Review #128–and pay a visit to Dublin. (And don’t miss the link to Banned Book Week.)

(By the way, in two weeks, Geoff Sharp and I will be sharing the hosting honors to commemorate the week in which Conflict Resolution Day is observed. Hope to see you there.)