Following the first Co-resolution Training, held in November of 2009, three highly-experienced mediators volunteered their time to conduct trial runs of co-resolution in real disputes. Susan Shostak and Randy Fisher took five cases through Marya Kolman's domestic mediation program in Columbus, and Margaret Miller and I took one case through Margaret's program in Chillicothe. The overall outcome of these efforts was educational and, for the most part, very supportive.
Susan and Randy
By surveying participants Randy and Susan found that (1) the parties always highly satisfied with their own co-resolver, (2) parties generally trusted the co-resolver on the other side, (3) parties all found the overall process to be neutral, and (4) parties were largely satisfied with the process overall. By supporting their separate parties in a fair and neutral process, without much in the way of practice with the co-resolution process, Susan and Randy have therefore demonstrated that co-resolution can work.
However, by also applying the process to different situations, Randy and Susan also learned a number of things about co-resolution. First, co-resolution is not for everyone--two parties that are not able to negotiate (to exchange ideas and solutions) will not be able to co-resolve. Co-resolution works to provide direct assistance and regulation to parties as they negotiate, but this level of support adds nothing without party participation. Also, co-resolution assistance can only go so far. Parties that need help at the negotiation table will benefit from co-resolution; however, parties that require direct assistance in their daily interactions with each other need ongoing support (a parent-coordinator or attorney). While most parties benefited from co-resolution--and one case that did not settle in mediation settled in co-resolution--there were situations that were inappropriate for either co-resolution or mediation.
As to their perceptions of the process, Susan and Randy are both non-attorney mediators, and this is important because co-resolution allows ADR professionals to play somewhat of an advocate. Randy and Susan both felt that they had rapport with their assigned party--that the parties largely seemed to appreciate the personal attention and coaching, and that the co-resolvers could challenge their own party when they were acting unreasonable. They further noted that the parties modeled their behavior on Randy and Susan's interaction with each other, and that communication flowed well around the table.
The process was, however, not without complaints. Susan and Randy indicated that they tended to fall back on their mediator-instincts, rendering the process a clone of co-mediation. By not acting as cooperative negotiators or advocates, the process became unnecessary complicated and duplicative, with the parties telling their stories to separate co-resolvers in the initial caucus and then again in the four-way session. Also, while co-resolution offers the parties coaching in conflict resolution skills, many parties want resolution more than a learning experience (the lesson here is that co-resolution is not strictly "conflict coaching + mediation"--the co-resolvers need to help the parties negotiate rather than teach them and then act as detached facilitators). Another learning experience was that, while Randy and Susan have been long term friends and co-workers, they have different mediation styles and this led to different approaches to co-resolution, which should be a balanced, symmetrical process. Despite these difficulties, Susan and Randy found value in the process and felt that it does work (I was glad that they didn't crash and burn).
Margaret and Nate
Margaret and I used co-resolution on one complex custody case that took 8 1/2 hours to resolve over the course of two sessions. One of the first observations we made afterwards is that co-resolution is not as mentally exhausting on the ADR professional as mediation--our first session was 5 1/2 hours of negotiation, and both of us felt fine at the end. This may occur because mediation requires the ADR professional to move back and forth between the parties' conflicting perceptions (while maintaining neutrality). Co-resolution, on the other hand, allowed each of us to focus on one party and use the common orientation of the co-resolvers and their balanced interaction to guide both parties in the same positive direction. Overall, Margaret felt that the process went very well and that the case would likely not have settled in mediation.
While it may be difficult for me to objectively observe the process while participating in it, I felt that it was advantageous that Margaret and I both had experience as attorneys. Co-resolution is all about enforcing positive behaviors between conflicting negotiators, and may therefore come more naturally to people who have experience negotiating.
As for other news about the Ohio Co-resolution Project: Randy, Margaret, and I presented co-resolution at the 2010 Association for Conflict Resolution national conference in Chicago. I hear that our evaluations were very positive. Currently, Susan and Randy are signing up to do more cases through Marya's program, and all five of us (including Marya) are going to do more training/discussing/role-playing to better understand the co-resolution process. More updates as events unfold.
5.22.2010
From Theory to Practice: Credit Where Credit's Due
Over the last year, I "went public" with the co-resolution idea. While developing this dispute resolution process was a great experience and presenting it to academics yielded curiosity and positive attention, trying to get the broader ADR community to apply co-resolution in real disputes has been . . . difficult (said through gritted teeth).
However, being that I'm only one relatively-inexperienced practitioner, I was not able to carry out this, the most Herculean phase of the project. Bringing co-resolution from theory to practice has therefore fallen on a few brave mediators, to whom I offer my most sincere gratitude. They are:
Susan Shostak: Susan was one of the first people to attend my Free Info Sessions on co-resolution last fall (which was nice because, most of the time, nobody attended). She expressed interest in applying co-resolution and even mentioned that she had a long-time friend who was a fellow mediator and potential partner in co-resolution. Being that a long-term relationship between the negotiators is key to co-resolution, this sounded ideal and was probably the best news I had heard in months. However, beyond being in an ideal place to apply co-resolution, Susan has been one of the most stalwart supporters of co-resolution, and a highly-discerning mind in how the process should be applied. Her ability to get things organized and ease my mind has been invaluable.
Randy Fisher: Randy is Susan's friend and will be her partner in the first American trial runs of co-resolution. I met Randy at the 2009 ACR Conference when he approached me just before my session to say that he would attend the November training in Columbus instead of the talk I was about to give. My next contact from Randy was a phone call as I was driving into Columbus on the morning of the training, asking if there were still any spots left. Randy has been incredibly enthusiastic about co-resolution and has made important suggestions about how the concept is presented (he even directed me with helpful questions during the November training). I therefore expect that he will be an asset as a trainer and proponent of co-resolution.
Marya Kolman: Marya is an important figure in ADR in general as the director of mediation programs in the Franklin County Courts and as an organizer of ACR's annual conference. Recently, she became of singular importance to co-resolution by being the first court administrator to approve trial runs of the process in court-connected cases. Randy and Susan deserve some extra thanks here for convincing Marya to take this step.
Margaret Honore Miller: Like Susan and Randy, Margaret was in attendance at the first co-resolution training session and, afterwards, signed up for further action in implementing the co-resolution process. Margaret has been very supportive of my efforts, but has hit a few snags in gaining approval for trial runs of the process. Despite this, her energy and input merit recognition and gratitude. Also, her theory on how co-resolution should fit into the Uniform Mediation Act may lead to a divergent school of thought on conceptualizing co-resolution.
Eric Bonfield: Eric is quite possibly the first and most important practitioner of co-resolution, and yet he only recently came to my attention. I'm currently getting the details about this, but Eric is the VP and Mediation Chair for the teacher's union in Surrey, British Columbia (B.C.'s largest school district with 5,500 teachers), who was struggling with using mediation as a labor relations tool. As a result, when my CRQ article on co-resolution came out, he began implementing the process immediately. Mr. Bonfield reports back the following outcomes:
However, being that I'm only one relatively-inexperienced practitioner, I was not able to carry out this, the most Herculean phase of the project. Bringing co-resolution from theory to practice has therefore fallen on a few brave mediators, to whom I offer my most sincere gratitude. They are:
Susan Shostak: Susan was one of the first people to attend my Free Info Sessions on co-resolution last fall (which was nice because, most of the time, nobody attended). She expressed interest in applying co-resolution and even mentioned that she had a long-time friend who was a fellow mediator and potential partner in co-resolution. Being that a long-term relationship between the negotiators is key to co-resolution, this sounded ideal and was probably the best news I had heard in months. However, beyond being in an ideal place to apply co-resolution, Susan has been one of the most stalwart supporters of co-resolution, and a highly-discerning mind in how the process should be applied. Her ability to get things organized and ease my mind has been invaluable.
Randy Fisher: Randy is Susan's friend and will be her partner in the first American trial runs of co-resolution. I met Randy at the 2009 ACR Conference when he approached me just before my session to say that he would attend the November training in Columbus instead of the talk I was about to give. My next contact from Randy was a phone call as I was driving into Columbus on the morning of the training, asking if there were still any spots left. Randy has been incredibly enthusiastic about co-resolution and has made important suggestions about how the concept is presented (he even directed me with helpful questions during the November training). I therefore expect that he will be an asset as a trainer and proponent of co-resolution.
Marya Kolman: Marya is an important figure in ADR in general as the director of mediation programs in the Franklin County Courts and as an organizer of ACR's annual conference. Recently, she became of singular importance to co-resolution by being the first court administrator to approve trial runs of the process in court-connected cases. Randy and Susan deserve some extra thanks here for convincing Marya to take this step.
Margaret Honore Miller: Like Susan and Randy, Margaret was in attendance at the first co-resolution training session and, afterwards, signed up for further action in implementing the co-resolution process. Margaret has been very supportive of my efforts, but has hit a few snags in gaining approval for trial runs of the process. Despite this, her energy and input merit recognition and gratitude. Also, her theory on how co-resolution should fit into the Uniform Mediation Act may lead to a divergent school of thought on conceptualizing co-resolution.
Eric Bonfield: Eric is quite possibly the first and most important practitioner of co-resolution, and yet he only recently came to my attention. I'm currently getting the details about this, but Eric is the VP and Mediation Chair for the teacher's union in Surrey, British Columbia (B.C.'s largest school district with 5,500 teachers), who was struggling with using mediation as a labor relations tool. As a result, when my CRQ article on co-resolution came out, he began implementing the process immediately. Mr. Bonfield reports back the following outcomes:
- That the co-resolution model is a smashing success as a labor relations tool,
- That it has produced negotiated agreements in conflicts between principals and entire staffs, between groups within teachers' unions, and between individual employees,
- That HR for the district is restructuring its dispute resolution around co-resolution, hiring on a full time labor relations attorney to act as a co-resolver,
- That co-resolution has created more immediate response through early settlement of disputes and is therefore expected to reduce the number of arbitrations,
- That co-resolution effectively overcomes the competition-cooperation dilemma, which normally favors competition, as described in dominant negotiation theory,
- And that the momentum behind co-resolution is building.
This is, to my knowledge, the most extensive application of co-resolution, and I'm thrilled to hear about its success. Based on my difficulty bringing co-resolution to practice and what I've read and know about the grueling demands of innovation, I can only imagine that Mr. Bonfield has expended unmatched energy and risk in convincing a large, complex organization to adopt and regularly use co-resolution. I am therefore deeply indebted to Mr. Bonfield and wish him continued luck in negotiating with co-resolution.
5.19.2010
Attention Potential Co-resolvers: I Don't Bite
If years of rejection and blank stares have taught me anything, it's that no one will actually apply co-resolution to real disputes just because I describe it to them. When I first came up with co-resolution, I thought that the case for it was so strong and obvious that members of the ADR community would try it out once they heard about it. When this simple and stupid dream was crushed, I accepted that I was going to have to assist with the first trial runs of co-resolution and that, years later, people would go back and read these blog posts.
Well, apparently there's no end to how wrong I can be. I recently received word that a school district in British Columbia began using co-resolution in labor disputes shortly after my article came out and that it is reportedly very successful.
Before I publish further details about this little milagro (hopefully soon), let me throw something out there. While I hold registered copyrights on co-resolution, I did not patent the process and I do not intend to profit from other people using it. So if there is anyone else out there that is using co-resolution, please contact me at coresolution.adr@gmail.com. I am speaking at the next ACR Conference and would gladly share your story.
Well, apparently there's no end to how wrong I can be. I recently received word that a school district in British Columbia began using co-resolution in labor disputes shortly after my article came out and that it is reportedly very successful.
Before I publish further details about this little milagro (hopefully soon), let me throw something out there. While I hold registered copyrights on co-resolution, I did not patent the process and I do not intend to profit from other people using it. So if there is anyone else out there that is using co-resolution, please contact me at coresolution.adr@gmail.com. I am speaking at the next ACR Conference and would gladly share your story.
5.18.2010
Mediation: Both Effective and Unsatisfying
Conflict Resolution Quarterly recently printed an article in which it was shown, through rigorous quantitative analysis, that mediation is able to bridge emotional understanding between parties and that the process is, regardless, unsatisfying.
The article, "Exploring the Role of Emotion in Conflict Transformation," was written by Jameson et al and was published in the recent winter issue. In order to explore emotion in dispute resolution processes, the authors' study compared the emotional affect (how the parties felt about each other) before and after mediation and negotiation.
The hypothesis was that parties in mediation (as compared to negotiation) would feel greater empathy for each other, feel less animosity, feel that their concerns were addressed, and have a higher level of satisfaction. Basically, the study would demonstrate that mediation is better than negotiation because it is able to address emotion.
What the study found, however, was both counter intuitive (to the authors) and supportive of co-resolution theory. While the parties in mediation reported having more positive and less negative emotion, the parties in negotiation experienced higher satisfaction with the process. So, unless they masochistically prefer negative emotions, the parties preferred to negotiate rather than act through an intermediary.
The reason that this study would support co-resolution over mediation is that co-resolution impacts party participation by guiding it in positive directions rather than passing it through an intermediary. Co-resolution uses two negotiation coaches that reliably promote principled negotiation behaviors. In comparison, a single mediator has control of the process and acts as a filter in restraining certain behaviors in the negotiating parties. While the mediator's overall impact may improve party participation, neither party should feel that the mediator is supporting or enhancing their participation (because this would violate neutrality).
So mediation primarily works by restraining the parties, and co-resolution primarily works by enhancing the parties.
First, a quick note on how co-resolution is able to do this (it's more complicated than just employing two ADR professionals). Unlike any other dispute resolution process, co-resolution employs partisan negotiators (co-resolvers) who work against each other as advocates/coaches for opposing parties, but work together as ongoing partners in a single dispute resolution service. Under this unique tension, the co-resolvers have a controlling incentive to act amicably and cooperatively (because their working relationship is on the line), but must also loyally support separate parties (because either party can fire both co-resolvers by merely walking away from the negotiation). As a result, the parties get loyal negotiation coaches that will enhance their performance in the negotiation, but only in positive, interest-based directions.
Thus, co-resolution achieves the same outcome as mediation--bringing the parties to use productive, Getting-to-Yes negotiation methods--but does so through personal, partisan assistance rather than the control of a neutral, detached third party. In reaction to the results of the above study, I would therefore predict that co-resolution would be able to achieve the transformative, emotion-focused effects of mediation while also producing the satisfaction found in negotiating without an intermediary.
The article, "Exploring the Role of Emotion in Conflict Transformation," was written by Jameson et al and was published in the recent winter issue. In order to explore emotion in dispute resolution processes, the authors' study compared the emotional affect (how the parties felt about each other) before and after mediation and negotiation.
The hypothesis was that parties in mediation (as compared to negotiation) would feel greater empathy for each other, feel less animosity, feel that their concerns were addressed, and have a higher level of satisfaction. Basically, the study would demonstrate that mediation is better than negotiation because it is able to address emotion.
What the study found, however, was both counter intuitive (to the authors) and supportive of co-resolution theory. While the parties in mediation reported having more positive and less negative emotion, the parties in negotiation experienced higher satisfaction with the process. So, unless they masochistically prefer negative emotions, the parties preferred to negotiate rather than act through an intermediary.
The reason that this study would support co-resolution over mediation is that co-resolution impacts party participation by guiding it in positive directions rather than passing it through an intermediary. Co-resolution uses two negotiation coaches that reliably promote principled negotiation behaviors. In comparison, a single mediator has control of the process and acts as a filter in restraining certain behaviors in the negotiating parties. While the mediator's overall impact may improve party participation, neither party should feel that the mediator is supporting or enhancing their participation (because this would violate neutrality).
So mediation primarily works by restraining the parties, and co-resolution primarily works by enhancing the parties.
First, a quick note on how co-resolution is able to do this (it's more complicated than just employing two ADR professionals). Unlike any other dispute resolution process, co-resolution employs partisan negotiators (co-resolvers) who work against each other as advocates/coaches for opposing parties, but work together as ongoing partners in a single dispute resolution service. Under this unique tension, the co-resolvers have a controlling incentive to act amicably and cooperatively (because their working relationship is on the line), but must also loyally support separate parties (because either party can fire both co-resolvers by merely walking away from the negotiation). As a result, the parties get loyal negotiation coaches that will enhance their performance in the negotiation, but only in positive, interest-based directions.
Thus, co-resolution achieves the same outcome as mediation--bringing the parties to use productive, Getting-to-Yes negotiation methods--but does so through personal, partisan assistance rather than the control of a neutral, detached third party. In reaction to the results of the above study, I would therefore predict that co-resolution would be able to achieve the transformative, emotion-focused effects of mediation while also producing the satisfaction found in negotiating without an intermediary.
2.06.2010
Report from the First Co-resolution Training and Introducing the Ohio Co-resolution Project
The other thing that was absorbing my attention since my last blogging spurt was the first ever training in co-resolution.
After my failed attempt in July to organize a co-resolution event, I am happy to report that on November 13th, 2009, eight members of the central Ohio ADR community gathered to spend the better part of the day learning about and training in co-resolution. The attendees included mediators in private practice, leaders of court-connected and agency-connected mediation programs, mediators for non-profit groups, and graduates of masters level ADR programs.
Following four hours of lecture/discussion and two hours of role-playing, this is what the attendees had to say about co-resolution:
"This process brings out the best in people."
"This may be a brilliant master stroke that will impact the entire field...couldn't have come at a better time"
"The role plays were a real turning point in understanding the process."
"I had some serious doubts...I am leaving the training feeling that Co-Resolution has some significant promise to advancing ADR goals."
In my reaction to these reactions, let me say that I did predict that people would see the value of this process. I hypothesized that once parties were able to both feel protected (because they have the personal attention of a negotiation coach) and trust the other side (because the opposing coach cannot promote competitive negotiation tactics), then the parties would be able to follow their higher selves instead of engaging in an attack-and-defend approach to negotiation.
However, I did not predict that the role plays would be such an effective educational tool. The attendees were able to comprehend my arguments and listen patiently as I lectured on the co-resolution concept, but they were only able to truly soak up and grasp the idea once they had applied it in role plays. Acting as either the co-resolvers or the parties, they were able to experience the dynamics at play in co-resolution and arrive at insights and interpretations of their own.
So with all evaluation sheets rating the co-resolution concept and the training itself at 5 out of 5, I declare that this endeavor was a success. However, more than just reaffirming the value of the co-resolution concept, this training produced something that I've been hoping for for years...
Shortly after the training, I sent out an email to the participants inviting their further support and initiative in putting co-resolution into practice. And in response, I found three people who seem to have the courage, creativity, initiative, and wisdom to try out a new dispute resolution process.
More details as events unfold.
After my failed attempt in July to organize a co-resolution event, I am happy to report that on November 13th, 2009, eight members of the central Ohio ADR community gathered to spend the better part of the day learning about and training in co-resolution. The attendees included mediators in private practice, leaders of court-connected and agency-connected mediation programs, mediators for non-profit groups, and graduates of masters level ADR programs.
Following four hours of lecture/discussion and two hours of role-playing, this is what the attendees had to say about co-resolution:
"This process brings out the best in people."
"This may be a brilliant master stroke that will impact the entire field...couldn't have come at a better time"
"The role plays were a real turning point in understanding the process."
"I had some serious doubts...I am leaving the training feeling that Co-Resolution has some significant promise to advancing ADR goals."
In my reaction to these reactions, let me say that I did predict that people would see the value of this process. I hypothesized that once parties were able to both feel protected (because they have the personal attention of a negotiation coach) and trust the other side (because the opposing coach cannot promote competitive negotiation tactics), then the parties would be able to follow their higher selves instead of engaging in an attack-and-defend approach to negotiation.
However, I did not predict that the role plays would be such an effective educational tool. The attendees were able to comprehend my arguments and listen patiently as I lectured on the co-resolution concept, but they were only able to truly soak up and grasp the idea once they had applied it in role plays. Acting as either the co-resolvers or the parties, they were able to experience the dynamics at play in co-resolution and arrive at insights and interpretations of their own.
So with all evaluation sheets rating the co-resolution concept and the training itself at 5 out of 5, I declare that this endeavor was a success. However, more than just reaffirming the value of the co-resolution concept, this training produced something that I've been hoping for for years...
Shortly after the training, I sent out an email to the participants inviting their further support and initiative in putting co-resolution into practice. And in response, I found three people who seem to have the courage, creativity, initiative, and wisdom to try out a new dispute resolution process.
More details as events unfold.
1.23.2010
An Apology and Thoughts on Small-Town Law Practice
As this is my first blog post in four months, let me start by apologizing. Sorry I neglected you blog. And just like peanut butter and jelly, dinner and a movie, and mismatched officers in buddy-cop films, apologies go well with explanations. So here is my explanation for why I haven't blogged in four months.
First of all, I started a small-town law practice. Not a simple endeavor, especially considering the fact that never, in my entire law school career, did I plan on being a lawyer. Sounds weird? I didn't think so. When I was in college, a mediator told me that law school was the best route into the ADR field. NOTE: If you are a mediator, do not tell this to anyone, especially college students (they are gullible and apt to take on massive student loans, which I learned AFTER law school are not dischargeable in bankruptcy).
So anyway, I've been spending most of my time learning how to be a lawyer and learning Ohio law. As it turns out, obsessively reading caselaw for three years does not make you any more qualified to be an attorney than to be a mediator (well, maybe a little more). But I now know enough to be able to handle most of the clients that other attorneys do not want and, therefore, refer to me. The other part of setting up the office has been setting up the actual office, getting furniture, and buying suits. Thank you thrift stores.
So that is my main excuse for not writing about co-resolution since September. However, this experience has reinforced in me a valuable co-resolution-related lesson.
One of the central elements of co-resolution is the fact that the two coaches help separate disputants but always work together. This ongoing relationship is designed to keep their conduct cooperative and productive--competitive, unfair moves in one case will cause retaliation in later cases and generally spoil the working relationship.
When I first presented this concept, I needed to prove that placing negotiators in this close-knit relationship would make them cooperate. But because "co-resolution" had never been formally attempted, I presented substitutes--situations in which advocates had to work against each other but also had to share a future relationship. These examples included public defenders that continually work against certain prosecutors, negotiators for businesses that frequently interact, and (guess what?) small-town attorneys.
In all of these cases, it was noted that the negotiators built rapport, became able to trust each other, and tended to use cooperative negotiation tactics (even though competitive tactics would create advantages in the present interaction). Explanations for this restrained behavior are that future interactions tend to cast a shadow back onto the present, that people placed in the same boat will be forced to cooperate, and that a positive working relationship will reap repeated gains over time (and is therefore itself valuable and worth protecting). Co-resolution then institutionalizes this effect by designing advocates that work against each other repeatedly but act as a single dispute resolution business or unit.
Well, my experience as a small-town attorney has largely confirmed my predictions. My office is located in Marion, Ohio, which is a small town/city set off from the major population centers in Ohio. And because there is only a handful of attorneys in any given practice area, and because they do not often interact with big-city attorneys, the attorneys in Marion are very amicable towards each other. When I first looked into practicing here, I heard from each and every attorney that Marion was the last refuge of civility in legal practice and that big-city practice was over-zealous, inefficient, and chaotic.
And, so far, my experience here has reflected this wisdom. Attorneys here are friendly with each other and are generally trusting, easygoing, and willing to cooperate (some are reported, by others, to occasionally pull a less-than-honest maneuver, but others wise up to these tendencies). The only public complaint about the Marion attorneys is that they are too friendly with each other, whereas, in the big city the public complaint is the opposite--that attorneys cannot cooperate or be reasonable with each other. And it is no secret among these small-town attorneys as to why they have such a collegial Bar--it is because they work across from each other constantly.
So the lesson for you is that small-town legal practice is a valid illustration of the forces at play in co-resolution. For once, this is my own actual experience and not though experiments on paper. And remember, the difference between these attorneys and co-resolvers is that co-resolvers operate as a single business or entity and focus only on negotiation. Meanwhile, the lesson for me is that I can be an attorney while avoiding the things that my ADR training and liberal parents taught me to dislike about the standard practice of law.
So that's my main excuse for not blogging. The other excuse will be the topic of my next blog.
First of all, I started a small-town law practice. Not a simple endeavor, especially considering the fact that never, in my entire law school career, did I plan on being a lawyer. Sounds weird? I didn't think so. When I was in college, a mediator told me that law school was the best route into the ADR field. NOTE: If you are a mediator, do not tell this to anyone, especially college students (they are gullible and apt to take on massive student loans, which I learned AFTER law school are not dischargeable in bankruptcy).
So anyway, I've been spending most of my time learning how to be a lawyer and learning Ohio law. As it turns out, obsessively reading caselaw for three years does not make you any more qualified to be an attorney than to be a mediator (well, maybe a little more). But I now know enough to be able to handle most of the clients that other attorneys do not want and, therefore, refer to me. The other part of setting up the office has been setting up the actual office, getting furniture, and buying suits. Thank you thrift stores.
So that is my main excuse for not writing about co-resolution since September. However, this experience has reinforced in me a valuable co-resolution-related lesson.
One of the central elements of co-resolution is the fact that the two coaches help separate disputants but always work together. This ongoing relationship is designed to keep their conduct cooperative and productive--competitive, unfair moves in one case will cause retaliation in later cases and generally spoil the working relationship.
When I first presented this concept, I needed to prove that placing negotiators in this close-knit relationship would make them cooperate. But because "co-resolution" had never been formally attempted, I presented substitutes--situations in which advocates had to work against each other but also had to share a future relationship. These examples included public defenders that continually work against certain prosecutors, negotiators for businesses that frequently interact, and (guess what?) small-town attorneys.
In all of these cases, it was noted that the negotiators built rapport, became able to trust each other, and tended to use cooperative negotiation tactics (even though competitive tactics would create advantages in the present interaction). Explanations for this restrained behavior are that future interactions tend to cast a shadow back onto the present, that people placed in the same boat will be forced to cooperate, and that a positive working relationship will reap repeated gains over time (and is therefore itself valuable and worth protecting). Co-resolution then institutionalizes this effect by designing advocates that work against each other repeatedly but act as a single dispute resolution business or unit.
Well, my experience as a small-town attorney has largely confirmed my predictions. My office is located in Marion, Ohio, which is a small town/city set off from the major population centers in Ohio. And because there is only a handful of attorneys in any given practice area, and because they do not often interact with big-city attorneys, the attorneys in Marion are very amicable towards each other. When I first looked into practicing here, I heard from each and every attorney that Marion was the last refuge of civility in legal practice and that big-city practice was over-zealous, inefficient, and chaotic.
And, so far, my experience here has reflected this wisdom. Attorneys here are friendly with each other and are generally trusting, easygoing, and willing to cooperate (some are reported, by others, to occasionally pull a less-than-honest maneuver, but others wise up to these tendencies). The only public complaint about the Marion attorneys is that they are too friendly with each other, whereas, in the big city the public complaint is the opposite--that attorneys cannot cooperate or be reasonable with each other. And it is no secret among these small-town attorneys as to why they have such a collegial Bar--it is because they work across from each other constantly.
So the lesson for you is that small-town legal practice is a valid illustration of the forces at play in co-resolution. For once, this is my own actual experience and not though experiments on paper. And remember, the difference between these attorneys and co-resolvers is that co-resolvers operate as a single business or entity and focus only on negotiation. Meanwhile, the lesson for me is that I can be an attorney while avoiding the things that my ADR training and liberal parents taught me to dislike about the standard practice of law.
So that's my main excuse for not blogging. The other excuse will be the topic of my next blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
