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:

• 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.

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.

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.