Most people believe successful dispute resolution requires substantiation or proving their claim with evidence and aggressive argumentation. Inherent in this approach is a “win-lose” assumption that dispute resolution comes from the exercise of real or assumed power and that any compromise is a loss.

Mediators know that a secret to successful dispute resolution is simply asking questions. Questions can not only reveal the respondent’s motivations, but actually act to encourage them to reconsider their own demands.

Some questions mediators ask that can be useful in any dispute are:

How did you arrive at that demand? Asked in a non-confrontational manner, this asks the respondent to share information. For example, a person demanding $25,000 for damages, when asked, may reveal that number is their best estimate, rather than actual estimates from contractors.

What is your objective or what are you trying to accomplish? Remember that demands, however strongly argued, are often just one way to solve the problem. When the objective is revealed, the door can be opened to alternative solutions. Mediators will tell you when asked this questionit’s not unusual to hear, “what I really want is an apology.”

If you were in the other person’s position, how would you see this? Often in conflict parties don’t recognize that the other party may have legitimate concerns. When those issues are recognized the doors to resolution can begin to be opened.

To advance dispute resolution the questioning must not be interrogation or obvious attempts to “win.” Questions that advance dispute resolution must be perceived as genuine attempts to learn more from the respondent.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.

Mediators have stories about when a party refuses to take part in a mediation because they “know” they are right. Typically, these are the ones while in court who decline mediation because they’re believe “the judge will agree with me.”

Mediators refer to this as Overconfidence Bias when it’s clear a person’s unwavering belief in their own likelihood of success is greater than objective reality. Even if they agree to negotiate, they usually refuse to compromise as they view doing so as an admission of being wrong. Overconfidence Bias is seen on the playground, in business, and extends to international relations.

Some strategies useful to breakdown the resistance to meaningful negotiations are:

1.) To present “The Worst Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement” (WATNA) and challenge the party to consider the consequences of not negotiating a settlement and then considering the chances of that outcome.

2.) To ask them to take a third party position and critique their position. This often brings shortcomings to light and the possibility they will not prevail.

3.) To suggest they calculate all the potential and future costs of winning compared to the costs of a simple immediate compromise. A $50,000 claim might net significantly less after attorney and court costs, which might be further reduced by any future actions by the other party.

4.) To address the party that says “It’s the principle that’s at stake.” As a mediator my response is to challenge the party with the question, “How much is the principle worth to you in dollars?” Often times that question moves a party from refusing to negotiate to at least begin a conversation.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.