As difficult as it can be to make requests of others, as I discussed in “New Year’s (Dispute) Resolution #3: Don’t be afraid to ask“, saying no to requests that others make of us can be just as hard.

Guilt can push us to say yes when all our instincts say no. Or we worry that “no” will harm a good relationship. Or we are convinced that saying no to them today will make them less willing to say yes to us tomorrow.

There’s an art in saying no well. And compelling reasons why no may be the best answer. According to negotiation expert William Ury’s 2007 bestseller, The Power of a Positive No: How to Say NO and Still Get to Yes,

In saying No positively, we are giving ourselves a gift. We are creating time and space for what we want. We are protecting what we value. We are changing the situation for the better — and all the while keeping our friends, colleagues, and customers. In short, we are being true to ourselves…

No is no longer a negation but an affirmation of the honesty that good relationships depend upon:

Your No can be a gift to the other as well. “Tell me Yes, tell me No, but tell me now” is a refrain I have often heard from those on the receiving end. The other often much prefers a clear answer, even if it is No, than continued indecision and waffling. A No allows them to go ahead and make their own decisions.

Indeed, a Positive No can bring us closer to the other, into a more authentic relationship. If we do not speak our truth — our No — we may in fact distance ourselves from the other, as there will always be something important that lies unspoken between us.

We need to gain greater comfort in saying yes to No.

If public opinion is anything to go by, conflict resolution is for sissies. If that’s the case, then maybe it’s time to give the public what it really wants: advice on how to escalate conflict.

I therefore offer 5 steps guaranteed to transform any molehill into a mountain:

1. Ignore facts. Disregard or suppress all evidence that undermines your position. In fact, facts can be trouble — they might raise doubt among your supporters, or, even worse, persuade them or even you that your opponent just might have a point. Take precautions by surrounding yourself with servile bootlickers who will tell you only what you want to hear.

2. Make stuff up. If you can’t find facts to support your position, just invent some. Rumor and innuendo are your friends. Remember, appeals to emotion, with no basis in reason, work best.

3. Make assumptions — lots of them. This is important. Assume first that you’re right and they’re wrong. Assume you need no further information (see Step #1 above). In addition, assume you know what they’re thinking. Attribute malicious motives to your opponent especially if there is no evidence to support that assumption. It’s fun to make them have to prove a negative.

4. Exaggerate the harm. Draw false analogies — the more improbable and exaggerated the better. Even if the issue concerns something minor (and admittedly most interpersonal problems are), compare your opponents to Nazis and the impact of their actions on you to the Holocaust. Accuracy isn’t important here — conveying your sense of injustice and wounded pride is the effect you’re going for.

5. Get personal. Attack your opponent’s character or physical appearance, not his or her arguments. Seek out every opportunity to impugn their credibility, their intelligence, their grasp of facts, their patriotism, or all four for extra bonus points. If possible, insult their parents, spouses, children, or pets, along with their social status, religion, and dietary habits.

These proven methods get results with family, co-workers, neighbors, bloggers, political opponents, or anyone you can’t stand. Try them today and you’ll be “getting to no” in no time!

All Things Considered, a National Public Radio news magazine, recently aired a program on the benefits for both patients and the medical profession when hospitals find better ways to respond to medical errors and unsatisfactory patient outcomes in “Practice of Hospital Apologies Is Gaining Ground“.

What stands out is the reaction of one patient interviewed for the program whose doctors failed to make an early cancer diagnosis. Instead of denying responsibility for the error, the hospital’s attorney arranged a meeting with the patient, the patient’s husband and her attorney, and the two oncologists who treated her. The patient had this to say about the experience:

My husband and I both left that meeting feeling like a million bucks. I was heard that night. That’s all I really wanted. I wanted them to know that this was not right, what happened to me.

The hospital’s attorney, also interviewed for the story, emphasized how important these conversations are for everyone involved. Looking back on a case early in his career in which a jury returned a defense verdict for his client, he remembered,

After the jury was dismissed, the lady who sued my client leaned across the podium and said, ‘If you had only told me everything I heard in this courtroom, I would never have sued you in the first place.’ That really left a mark on me, and for 20 years I wondered why we never talk to each other.

The benefits of these programs are numerous. Not only does everyone save money on legal costs, and not only do both sides learn important information from each other during the course of the conversation, but this willingness to be open encourages medical staff to come forward to report errors, which means greater safety for patients.

Listen to the story here–it’s well worth the six minutes it takes to hear those involved describe just how invaluable talking to each other can be.

(Photo credit: Wolf Friedmann.)

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.)

A member of a group I’m working with to develop a logo and marketing slogan for court-connected dispute resolution services just sent us all a link to “The Art of the Dispute“, an American Express ad that’s been airing during the U.S. Open.

Starring former tennis professional John McEnroe, remembered not only for his virtuosity on the tennis courts but also for his fearsome temper, the ad lauds the advantages of American Express cardmember dispute resolution services.

You can view either the commercial or a lengthier video clip. It’s a clever ad, regardless of what you may think about either McEnroe or American Express–and no matter what, it doesn’t hurt the mediation field that dispute resolution — with its promise of “less arguing” — gets placed squarely in front of the attention of the television-viewing public.

Every once in awhile, if we are fortunate, we meet an individual that intuition tells us is destined for great things.

My friend Ashok Panikkar is one of those individuals. Ashok, who left Boston and returned to his native Bangalore two years ago, founded Meta-Culture, Bangalore’s first center for dialogue and conflict transformation. When I interviewed Ashok in July 2005, he described his goals for Meta-Culture:

Meta-Culture is in the process of creating India’s first integrated conflict management group. The vision is to help people develop skills of discourse that are non-adversarial and built around the principles of dialogue rather than debate (even though there are situations where, for instance, Socratic debate can play a very useful part in helping to clarify ideas and challenge the mind). In doing so we can change the climate and culture of discourse so that individuals, organizations and societies can respond to differences with understanding and skill instead of doing so from anger, ignorance, fear, animosity or misplaced righteousness.Our mission is to engage in or promote activities that can help advance this vision. To this end we are engaged in consulting, research and education in the areas of ADR, especially mediation; facilitation; coaching; design of conflict and dispute management systems; and consensus building. Right now our focus is to establish Meta-Culture as a sustainable consulting practice. Very soon we will be setting up a separate division that will service the NGO and governmental sectors.

Unsurprisingly, Meta-Culture today is thriving, keeping Ashok and his staff busy. One of its projects, Meta-Culture Dialogics, a non-profit trust, recently attracted the attention of India media.

The purpose of this project has been to promote dialogue among Hindu, Muslim, Christian and Buddhist groups to discuss matters of importance over the course of 10 sessions. These sessions were not designed to get people “holding hands and singing Kumbaya” in the hopes of simply sweeping differences under the rug, as Ashok told me in a recent phone call.

According to Ashok, who was interviewed by The Hindu, “We are not into preaching peace, tolerance and harmony. Instead, we provide a platform for communities to talk about what is bothering them the most about the other community” and to ask each other the hard questions to give issues the healthy airing that honest dialogue can produce.

You can read more about this “Inter-faith dialogue for conflict resolution” as reported in an online edition of The Hindu.

Getting ready to head back to college? Moving into a new apartment on September 1? Prevent roommate disputes with these Declaration of Ownership labels.

Alternatively you could try the Fair Division Calculator, “a java applet for interactive decision making” which uses algorithms to achieve “envy-free divisions of goods, burdens, or rent”.

It looks like the digital age has spawned a whole new range of problems that can mar marital bliss, according to “‘Til Tech Do Us Part“, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal. Blogging, email, and mix-ups involving Amazon.com accounts are among the perils that lie in wait for newlyweds.

Whether couples are faced with 21st century troubles or more traditional challenges like money or differences in parenting styles, there’s no doubt that marriage is not always a bed of roses–and even if it is, coping with the thorns isn’t easy.

According to this post by Dave Hoffman at Concurring Opinions, one entrepreneur has a novel solution: financial incentive in the form of marriage insurance with “a guaranteed, high return payout for achieving such a milestone as a 25th (Silver) wedding anniversary”.

Meanwhile, in the event that a marriage fails and divorce looms on the horizon, there’s divorce software designed to help couples negotiate the division of the marital estate, as Stephanie West Allen at Idealawg describes. Unfortunately, with the focus of the divorce software on compromise rather than collaboration, couples may miss more creative and mutually profitable ways of dividing assets, according to Stephanie’s analysis. A human actor assisting in the negotiations can stimulate a three-dimensional consideration of all the factors involved.

This means of course that mediators are by no means obsolete. If the question is, “Do you want to work it out?” mediators can still help people get to “I do”.

(Hat tips to Slash Dot for the link on tech troubles for the married, and to Blawg Review for the link to the post on divorce insurance.)

As I’ve discussed here before, the conflict-averse among us (which, I suspect, is actually most of us) go to great lengths to avoid confrontation.

But even among those who are willing to tackle conflict, no one seems to want to do it face to face–which may explain the popularity of leaving notes for roommates, co-workers, neighbors, and others which detail grievances and make demands for behavioral change.

A blog, passiveaggressivenotes.com, collects these messages and displays them for the enjoyment of its readers. A fascinating foray into the stuff that drives people nuts and the way they deal with it.

The internet abounds with web sites to fill every imaginable need–including those of the conflict-avoiding multitudes.

Sorrygottago.com provides a sure-fire way to get off the phone and avoid annoying callers. Simply select a setting (at work, at home, telemarketer), turn up the volume, click on a sound file (traffic jam, airport, other line ringing, etc.) and let the sound effects do the dirty work for you.

(Thanks to Jim Calloway’s Law Practice Tips for the link.)

As a way to announce my return to blogging following a brief hiatus, I begin with a post that concerns one of the world’s most intractable conflicts (at least since the invention of indoor plumbing): the battle over the positioning of the toilet seat–up or down.

Now comes the study that all you gender-conscious game theorists have long been awaiting. From The Science Creative Quarterly is a paper addressing “The Social Norm of Leaving the Toilet Seat Down: A Game Theoretic Analysis“, which models the game as a non-cooperative one of conflict (which anyone in a multi-gender household can tell you is a fully accurate representation).

We can all hope that researchers may next examine another vexing problem: which way to hang the toilet paper–over or under.

(Thanks to Boing Boing.)

In an effort to raise public awareness of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has partnered with Google as part of an extraordinary project using Google Earth technology to map the atrocities in Darfur. From the USHMM web site:

Crisis in Darfur enables more than 200 million Google Earth users worldwide to visualize and better understand the genocide currently unfolding in Darfur, Sudan. The Museum has assembled content—photographs, data, and eyewitness testimony—from a number of sources that are brought together for the first time in Google Earth.Crisis in Darfur is the first project of the Museum’s Genocide Prevention Mapping Initiative that will over time include information on potential genocides allowing citizens, governments, and institutions to access information on atrocities in their nascent stages and respond.

You can download Google Earth along with the Crisis in Darfur layers at USHMM.

Recently I looked at why the world–or least America–has not yet gotten to yes. I described the cultural forces that resist mightily the logic and common sense of principled negotiation and are deeply distrustful of peacebuilding, collaboration, and dialogue.

I offer you yet one more example: a transcript of right-wing radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh’s comments on a recently released study on workplace bullying.

Here’s a sample–and it’s classic Limbaugh all the way:

There’s nothing new in any of this and all of these are obstacles that countless gazillions of people have overcome throughout life in the history of human civilization. Study Reveals Widespread Office Bullying! I know exactly what this is. I know exactly. It’s a bunch of liberals behind this, a bunch of pantywaist, limp-wristed, linguini-spined liberals who are out there trying to work their magic and reorder the basic tenets of human nature, which is largely what a lot of liberalism attempts to do.

I’d add more, but these limp wrists make it awfully hard to type.

From the storage vaults at the Smithsonian Institute: two pairs of elk horns locked together tell a tragic tale. Two elks, butting heads, entangled their horns.

Unable to free themselves, they both perished.

(Thanks to Boing Boing.)

I am sorry that my schedule won’t allow me to attend the upcoming Fifth International Forum on Online Dispute Resolution which will be held in Liverpool, England, on April 19-20, 2007. I would have liked the opportunity to meet innovative thinker and agent for progressive change, Sanjana Hattotuwa, who will be among the speakers.

Fortunately for us, Sanjana does some of his best thinking out loud at his blog, ICT for Peacebuilding (ICT stands for information communications technology).

While much of Sanjana’s efforts focus on Sri Lanka, his words and work have universal application. His writing speaks global truths. His most recent post exemplifies this: it is an impassioned and eloquent call for citizen journalism.

Anyone who cares about participatory democracy and a responsible media should listen closely.

According to studies in social psychology, many of us unwittingly overestimate our own abilities, blind to our own deficiencies.

These studies demonstrate, however, that accurate feedback powerfully counteracts these tendencies.

The problem though is that in many settings–workplaces for example–mechanisms for providing accurate feedback are often inadequate or even absent. Which explains why poor performance is so often seemingly rewarded by wage increases or even promotion.

Part of the problem of course is that we’re reluctant to deliver bad news. “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything” is drilled into us from childhood. Many of us may also feel totally unprepared to give feedback. The trouble though is that people won’t get better on their own. Without feedback to hold a mirror to our faces, we have no idea what’s not working and what needs to be changed.

Not sure how to give feedback? Consider the following suggestions:

1. Think about your goal. I remember a boss from one of my first jobs after college who seemed to enjoy publicly humiliating his employees. He would yell at his staff, berating them at a high decibel level. Needless to say, the turnover rate at this workplace was enormous. This guy lost sight of the purpose of feedback–an opportunity to build a relationship and trust with someone else, not demean them. The objective is to:

a. Help people understand the goals to be met
b. Explain what they’re doing and not doing to meet those goals–be honest
c. Provide a realistic blueprint for improvement

2. Provide privacy. Giving and receiving feedback can be hard. It can be more comfortable for everyone involved if it’s done privately–and allow for face-saving.

3. Give specifics. People need to understand exactly what isn’t working well. If you’re giving feedback, come prepared with specific examples. Document, document, document. In addition, provide specific details of steps that need to be taken. Be direct and clear.

4. Stop being an avoider. Delay doesn’t make problems go away–they will only get worse and be harder to deal with. The sooner a problem is addressed, the easier it is for everyone to remedy. When behavior is allowed to go on for years and no one ever says anything, it’s going to be much harder to address.

5. Set out a clear action plan. People need to know what comes next. Make sure that the goals are clear and that the other person understands them. If possible, chunk the action plan down into manageable, realistic steps. Do people need support or training to help them meet goals? Make sure that it’s going to be available. It’s also important that people understand the consequences of failing or refusing to make changes in response to feedback. And be consistent in enforcing consequences.

6. Give positive feedback too. If possible, don’t just dwell on negatives. Let people know what they’re doing that’s great. It gives people hope and incentive to continue to do those things well. Besides, we can all do with a pat on the back.

7. Follow up. It can be a great idea to establish a feedback checkup–a follow-up session or sessions to see if goals are being met or any fine-tuning needs to be done.

Got ideas of your own that work for you? Share them here–comments are welcome.

Mary Whisner at shlep, the legal self-help blog, points to an article on “The Many Costs of Conflict” by dispute resolution consultant Stewart Levine, which describes the heavy financial, emotional, and other tolls that conflict exacts.

According to Levine, these include:

• Direct Cost: Fees of lawyers and other professionals
• Productivity Cost: Value of lost time. The opportunity cost of what those involved would otherwise be producing.
• Continuity Cost: Loss of ongoing relationships including the “community” they embody
• Emotional Cost: The pain of focusing on and being held hostage by your emotions

It made me wonder what shlep and Levine would make of a new book on divorce for women by attorney Sherri Donovan: Hit Him Where It Hurts: The Take-No-Prisoners Guide to Divorce–Alimony, Custody, Child Support, and More.

The pugilistic theme doesn’t end with the title: the book jacket is adorned with a photo of a blood-red boxing glove. Chapters include “Are You Ready to Rumble?”, “Divorce Ain’t for Sissies”, “Sizing Up Your Opponent”, “Conditioning for the Fight of Your Life”, and “Psyching Up for the Fight”.

It should leave us all asking what kind of casualties result when divorce is framed as either prizefight or combat.

The most recent addition to the World Directory of ADR Blogs project is CResearch, the directory’s first blog devoted to conflict resolution research, news, and commentary.

Published by John Windmueller, Assistant Professor at the University of Baltimore’s Center for Negotiations and Conflict Management, CResearch was created to further discussions and information sharing between conflict resolution researchers and practitioners.

As John explains, “[W]here possible I’d like to see the division between practice and research blurred, with practitioners becoming more empowered and able to integrate research into their everyday work. Toward that, the site will share techniques, tools, and tips for practitioners interested in following their curiosity and bringing more rigorous evaluation and learning into their practice.”

I invite you to join me in welcoming John to the ADR blogosphere.

I’m always on the lookout for blogs to add to the World Directory of ADR Blogs‘ growing catalogue. If you wish to add your blog or someone else’s to the Directory, please let me know. It’s a commercial-free site, and there is no cost to be listed. The Directory has information on submitting your blog and submission guidelines.

This is a web site you’ve got to see to believe–for a fee, you can arrange for an alibi or excuse for any occasion. From the web site:

We all encounter sensitive situations in our life. These may include family problems, social issues, work or financial difficulties. When you don’t want to involve your close friends and relatives for privacy reasons it is time to contact Alibi Network. Let us be your Privacy Partners.

Is it proof of humankind’s enormous capacity for deception, or evidence that people will go to any length (and expense) to avoid an argument? You decide.

Visit the Alibi Network to see for yourself.

A recent press release from Jim Melamed at Mediate.com reminds me of the words from the 1969 Who classic: “We’re Not Gonna Take It“.

It’s mediators who aren’t taking it any more, and what they’re not taking is the failure on the part of world leaders to engage in effective negotiations to defuse once and for all the crises breaking out around the globe.

From the press release:

Senior Mediators Release Statement Urging Effective Negotiation Approaches

There comes a time when even mediators will speak up. Mediators are conflict resolvers who help others to resolve conflict in a voluntary and constructive way. Mediators are normally quiet, priding themselves on their impartiality and neutrality. Now, however, over 75 of the world’s leading mediators have “had enough” according to Mediate.com CEO Jim Melamed, and have signed a statement urging that community, national and global leaders engage effective negotiation and mediation approaches. Here is the text of the Mediators’ Statement developed at the recent Senior Mediators Conference in Keystone, Colorado:

Given that the world is confronted with real and perceived threats from several international arenas we, the undersigned, urge that citizens of our nations insist their elected and appointed government officials immediately engage in honest, direct and unconditional negotiations with all authorities and powers who can resolve these pending crises in ways that are equitable and practical for all concerned without sacrifice to national sovereignty or security. As citizens of the world and as professional negotiators and mediators we urge that proven conflict resolution processes be employed now.

To show your support , visit the web site for the International Coalition of Concerned Mediators at www.concernedmediators.org.

Pass it on.