Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice
4.5K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by Rob Duke
onto Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice
Scoop.it!

Claims That Google Violates Gmail User Privacy

Claims That Google Violates Gmail User Privacy | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
A federal judge last week refused to dismiss most of a lawsuit against Google over accusations that it improperly scanned the contents of e-mails in order to target ads.
more...
No comment yet.
Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice
Expanding the critical perspective of justice to suggest restorative processes and ADR as tools for reparation.
Curated by Rob Duke
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Negotiate with a Liar

How to Negotiate with a Liar | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
1. Encourage Reciprocity
Humans have a strong inclination to reciprocate disclosure: When someone shares sensitive information with us, our instinct is to match their transparency. In fact, simply telling people that others—even strangers—have divulged secrets encourages reciprocation. In a series of studies that I conducted with Alessandro Acquisti and George Loewenstein, we presented readers of the New York Times with a list of unethical behaviors, such as making a false insurance claim and cheating on one’s tax return. People who were told that “most other participants” had admitted doing those things were 27% more likely to reveal that they had done likewise than were people who were told that only a few others had made such admissions.

Humans are particularly inept at recognizing lies that are cloaked in flattery.

Reciprocity is particularly pronounced in face-to-face interactions. In experiments led separately by Arthur Aron and Constantine Sedikides, randomly paired participants who worked their way through a series of questions designed to elicit mutual self-disclosure were more likely to become friends than were pairs instructed to simply make small talk. (One couple assigned to the disclosure exercise eventually married!) Inducing a close relationship is not the primary goal of most negotiations, of course. But other research, by Maurice Schweitzer and Rachel Croson, shows that people lie less to those they know and trust than they do to strangers.

A good way to jump-start reciprocity is to be the first to disclose on an issue of strategic importance (because your counterpart is likely to share information in the same category). For example, imagine you are selling a piece of land. The price it will command depends on how it’s developed. So you might tell a potential buyer that you want to sell the land for the best use. This could prompt her to divulge her plans; at a minimum, you are encouraging a conversation about interests, which is critical to creating mutually beneficial deals. This strategy has the added benefit of letting you frame the negotiation, which can enhance your chances of finding breakthroughs.

2. Ask the Right Questions
Most people like to think of themselves as honest. Yet many negotiators guard sensitive information that could undermine their competitive position. In other words, they lie by omission, failing to volunteer pertinent facts. For example, consider an individual who is selling his business but knows that vital equipment needs replacing—a problem imperceptible to outsiders. It might seem unethical for him to withhold that information, but he may feel that by simply avoiding the topic, he can charge a higher price while still maintaining his integrity. “If the buyer had asked me, I would have told the truth!” he might insist.

The risk of not getting the whole story is why it’s so important to test your negotiating partners with direct questions. Schweitzer and Croson found that 61% of negotiators came clean when asked about information that weakened their bargaining power, compared to 0% of those not asked. Unfortunately, this tactic can backfire. In the same experiment, 39% of negotiators who were questioned about the information ultimately lied. But you can go a long way toward avoiding that outcome by posing your queries carefully. Research by Julia Minson, Nicole Ruedy, and Schweitzer indicates that people are less likely to lie if questioners make pessimistic assumptions (“This business will need some new equipment soon, right?”) rather than optimistic ones (“The equipment is in good order, right?”). It seems to be easier for people to lie by affirming an untrue statement than by negating a true statement.

3. Watch for Dodging
Savvy counterparts often get around direct questions by answering not what they were asked but what they wish they’d been asked. And, unfortunately, we are not naturally gifted at detecting this sort of evasiveness. As Todd Rogers and Michael Norton have found, listeners usually don’t notice dodges, often because they’ve forgotten what they originally asked. In fact, the researchers discovered that people are more impressed by eloquent sidestepping than by answers that are relevant but inarticulate.

Dodge detection is improved, however, when listeners are prompted to remember the question—for example, when it is visible as the speaker replies. In a negotiation, therefore, it’s a good idea to come to the table with a list of questions, leaving space to jot down your counterpart’s answers. Take time after each response to consider whether it actually provided the information you sought. Only when the answer to that question is “yes” should you move on to the next issue.

4. Don’t Dwell on Confidentiality
Research shows that when we work to assure others that we’ll maintain their privacy and confidentiality, we may actually raise their suspicions, causing them to clam up and share less. As early as the 1970s, the National Research Council documented this paradox with potential survey participants: The greater the promises of protection, the less willing people were to respond. This relationship holds up in experimental research. In studies conducted by Eleanor Singer, Hans-Jürgen Hippler, and Norbert Schwarz, for example, fewer than half of the people who received a strong confidentiality assurance agreed to complete an innocuous survey, whereas about 75% of those given no such assurance agreed to do so.


My colleagues and I have discovered that strong privacy protections can also increase lying. In addition, we’ve found that when questions are posed in a casual tone rather than a formal one, people are more likely to divulge sensitive information. Imagine you are negotiating a job offer with a prospective employee and would like to assess the strength of her other options: Does she have competitive offers? She’s likely to be more forthcoming if you avoid or at least minimize confidentiality assurances and instead nonchalantly broach the topic: “We all know there are tons of great firms out there. Any chance you might be considering other places?” Of course, you should still properly protect any confidential information you receive, but there’s no reason to announce that unless asked.

5. Cultivate Leaks
People inadvertently leak information in all kinds of ways, including in their own questions. For example, suppose you are in charge of procurement for a firm and you’re about to sign a contract with a supplier who has promised to deliver goods within six months. Before signing, he asks you what happens in the event of late delivery. The question could be innocent, but it might also signal his worries about meeting the schedule. So you need to pay attention.

When people leak mindlessly, the information tends to be accurate. Astute negotiators realize that valuable knowledge can be gleaned simply by listening to everything their counterparts say, even seemingly extraneous or throwaway comments—in the same way that interrogators look for statements from criminal suspects that include facts not known to the public.

In the Hot Seat: Handling Tough Questions Honestly






READ MORE
Even if your counterpart is determined to withhold information, you can still encourage leakage. In a series of experiments, my collaborators and I found that people are much more likely to let slip information about their engagement in sensitive behaviors than they are to explicitly divulge it. In one study, we probed New York Times readers about matters such as lying about their income. We directly asked people in one group if they had ever engaged in specific activities. We took an indirect approach with the other group, asking participants to rate the ethicality of various behaviors using one of two scales—one scale if they themselves had engaged in the behavior and a different scale if they had not. Participants in the latter group were roughly 1.5 times likelier to admit (tacitly) to bad behavior than were people asked point-blank about their conduct.

In a negotiation, you might use similarly indirect tactics to glean information. For example, give your counterpart a choice of two different offer packages—two possible ways of dividing the spoils—both of which would be acceptable to you. If she expresses a preference for one over the other, she is leaking information about her priorities and giving you insight into her relative valuation of the issues up for negotiation.

Here’s one more strategy that might encourage your counterpart to inadvertently show her hand: Request contingency clauses that attach financial consequences to her claims. If she balks at agreeing to them, it may be because she’s lying. At a minimum, such a reaction should prompt you to probe further. Suppose, for example, that your business is negotiating the acquisition of a small start-up. Your counterpart gives you sales projections that strike you as optimistic or even impossible. You could propose a contingency clause that would tie the acquisition price to the sales level achieved. That would motivate your counterpart to provide realistic sales projections, and it would protect you if she’s wrong.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The overwhelming majority of people praise their co-workers, even when they don’t have to

Maybe people are basically good after all. Impraise is a Dutch startup that built an app for collecting feedback on co-workers. It’s used by companies like Atlassian, Ogilvy and Elsevier, with about 90% of that feedback generated anonymously.
While the feedback sent within the Impraise app is anonymous, senders are asked to rate how positive the feedback they sent was. On a scale from one to 10, for example, feedback rated 10 would mean the sender just sent extremely positive feedback to a co-worker.
We asked Impraise to analyze what sort of feedback people gave their co-workers. The company pulled 230,000 instances of feedback from the last 18 months. Impraise improbably found that nearly 92% of feedback was positive. Feedback is considered positive when it’s rated six or better on a normalized 10-point scale (each Impraise customer can modify the scale, so it’s not always 10 points).
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

I Asked HBR Readers How They Negotiate — Here’s What I Found

I Asked HBR Readers How They Negotiate — Here’s What I Found | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Among the men, 30% said that they tend to start with a bold ask.  For women the number was just marginally higher, at 33%. The male/female percentages were close or equal for the other three options, as well.

These results appear to run counter to a lot of research about gender and negotiation, notably Linda Babcock and Sara Laschever’s ground-breaking book Women Don’t Ask and the subsequent work it inspired. Studies indicate that women tend not to be as bold (or perhaps as audacious) as men when advocating for themselves.

But three caveats are important. First, HBR readers may not be representative of the broader population. (For that matter, people who choose to take the assessment may not be representative of HBR readers.) Second, self-reported preferences and tactics may not match what people would do in a lab experiment — and surveys and lab studies may not square with real-world behavior. Third, and perhaps most important, women who responded to this study may well have been thinking about professional rather than personal negotiations, such as buying a home or car for themselves. If so, these results fit with existing research, which suggests that women are as assertive as men when it comes to representing their colleagues, organizations, and family members.

Still, the similarity in male and female responses should raise a yellow caution flag for all negotiators: Don’t fall into the gender-stereotype trap. Knowing the gender of the person you’re dealing with tells you little, if anything, about how he or she approaches negotiation or the tactics he or she is likely to employ. Whatever gender tendencies may exist (if any) are minor compared with the much greater variation there is within each group. There are competitive, assertive women, just as there are collaborative, empathetic men. And wherever your counterparts are on those dimensions, your task is to get them to think and behave in ways that serve your interests.

That last point brings us back to tactics. My colleague Deepak Malhotra puts it well in his new book, Negotiating the Impossible. “Not only is it difficult to generalize about the wisdom of a particular tactic,” he says, “there are also too many tactics to keep track of.” He advises working from broader strategic principles instead. His core list includes negotiating the process before getting to substance, framing problems creatively, and recognizing the need for parties to save face.

I couldn’t agree more. Any negotiation tactics you use should advance such ends, not subvert them.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Mediators Arbitration ADR
Scoop.it!

Adr Services: In The Interest Of Maintaining Peace Throughout Disputes

Adr Services: In The Interest Of Maintaining Peace Throughout Disputes | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
There are many actions and interactions between businesses of all kinds. Few businesses stand alone without needing to obtain services or supplies from other businesses. Whether the businesses work under a binding contract or a simple verbal agreement, they are prone to disputes that can interrupt the work flow of both sides. When two entities are unable to come to an agreement on their own, they have two options available to them. One is to file a lawsuit and go through a lengthy litigation where a judge will settle the dispute. The other is to use a method of Alternative Dispute Resolution to get to a faster resolution. There are a number of reasons that ADR services are so valuable to businesses that rely on each other for profits. In many cases, the relationship between the businesses is a long and mutually dependent one that both sides want to continue with going forward. If they are unable to come to a fast, agreeable resolution, this may no longer be a viable option. Arbitrator and Mediator Daniel Yamshon explains that when people are given the opportunity to resolve their differences amicably, peace can be maintained throughout the process and for the [...]

Via Danial Shawn
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The Power Of Parting: 7 Things You Need to Stop Doing - Lolly Daskal | Leadership

The Power Of Parting: 7 Things You Need to Stop Doing - Lolly Daskal | Leadership | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
A young man came to his wise leader and asked how he could be a better leader. The wise leader said, “Let me pour you a cup of tea.” And so he started
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Help! My work friend is emotionally blackmailing me to report our supervisor

Help! My work friend is emotionally blackmailing me to report our supervisor | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
When I first arrived at a new job, "Erin" was a helpful and welcoming friend. Now she wants me to report our supervisor -- who I don't have a problem with.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

5 Tips From A Hostage Negotiator On How To Handle Your Toddler

5 Tips From A Hostage Negotiator On How To Handle Your Toddler | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Robin Burcell spent 12 years as a hostage negotiator in Lodi, California. Now an award-winning author (Burcell's latest book, The Last Good Place, is available
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

What Happens When Pride Gets in the Way of Leadership - Lolly Daskal | Leadership

What Happens When Pride Gets in the Way of Leadership - Lolly Daskal | Leadership | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Like many things in life, pride can be either a positive or a negative. It’s a great and appropriate thing to feel when you’ve worked hard to accomplish
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from The Daily Leadership Scoop
Scoop.it!

10 Principles of Organizational Culture

10 Principles of Organizational Culture | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

How often have you heard somebody — a new CEO, a journalist, a management consultant, a leadership guru, a fellow employee — talk about the urgent need to change the culture? They want to make it world-class. To dispense with all the nonsense and negativity that annoys employees and stops good intentions from growing into progress. To bring about an entirely different approach, starting immediately.

 


 


Via Kenneth Mikkelsen, Bobby Dillard
more...
Walter Gassenferth's curator insight, April 10, 7:35 AM
Organizational culture is a very important topic and often overlooked by companies. For those who speak the Spanish or Portuguese, more about organizational architecture can be read in http://www.quanticaconsultoria.com
David Hain's curator insight, May 14, 6:29 AM

Most organisations want culture change quick fixes - but there are building blocks to develop first!

Ian Berry's curator insight, May 14, 9:04 PM
I like the emphasis on behaviour. Fits with the best definition of culture I know of from Michael Henderson "Culture is what it means to be human here"
Rescooped by Rob Duke from IT and Leadership
Scoop.it!

What to "Fix" If You Want to Be a Leader

What to "Fix" If You Want to Be a Leader | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
It's commonly supposed that leaders are born and not made, but there is no real evidence for that. More realistically, leadership is a quality you discover in yourself, not by a sudden revelation but by a series of steps. Each step leads to the same conclusion: "I can do this." As you meet one challenge after another, you grow into leadership. The process is entirely personal and different from one individual to the next, which is why no university or business school course can actually produce leaders through a course on the subject.

Via Steve Krogull
more...
Rob Duke's curator insight, April 24, 12:57 PM
Darn good advice....
Rescooped by Rob Duke from IT and Leadership
Scoop.it!

People Won’t Grow If You Think They Can’t Change

People Won’t Grow If You Think They Can’t Change | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Have you ever worked hard to improve a valuable skill and made real progress, only to have your development go unnoticed by the people who told you that you needed to improve? Perhaps this led you to look for a new job. Or maybe you’re a manager who’s been disappointed by poor performance and concluded that your low-performing employees are simply over-entitled? So you gave up on trying to help them improve and vented your frustration with colleagues behind closed doors.

Both of these commonplace experiences point to problems caused by a fixed mindset, in which we find it hard to believe that people can change. In the first scenario, an employee is judged as having low potential—and this assessment blinds leaders to the progress he’s made. In the second, the manager’s conviction that her employees will never change makes her less likely to engage in leadership behaviors that support development. The bottom line in both cases is that employees are less likely to reach their potential.

Via Steve Krogull
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

7 Ways to Create Harmony In the Office

7 Ways to Create Harmony In the Office | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Simple, pleasant behaviors bolster camaraderie that improves productivity at work.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to See Through These 3 Hardball Negotiation Tactics

How to See Through These 3 Hardball Negotiation Tactics | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Tactic #1: “We will never…”

What You Do: My response to any ultimatum — regardless of the type of negotiation or how the ultimatum was delivered — is usually quite simple: I completely ignore it. I don’t ask people to repeat or clarify ultimatums. Why? Many ultimatums are not true deal-breakers. Sometimes people are just emotional, or trying to assert control, or using strong language in an attempt to gain advantage. In such these cases, it will be easier for them to back down later if you have not engaged with or legitimized the ultimatum.  How so? There may come a day — a week from now, a month from now, or years from now — when the other side realizes that what they said they could never do, they must do, or is actually in their best interest to do. When that day comes, the last thing I need is for them to remember me having heard them say they will never do so — because then they will not be able to say “yes” without losing face.  Too often, people will escalate matters, and even sacrifice their own best interests, if that’s the only way for them to save face.  If ignoring an ultimatum is not possible, you want to reframe their statement as a non-ultimatum before continuing.  For example, if they say “I will never do this,” I might respond as follows: “I can understand, given where we are today, this would be very difficult for you to do…”  This way, I’ve given them two ways out.  This would be “very difficult”, not impossible, and their reluctance is “given where we are today,” not forever.

Tactic #2: “Just one more thing…”

What You Do: It can be really frustrating when people keep adding new conditions when you think a deal has been struck. When it happens, it’s important to distinguish between two (of multiple) possibilities. They might think you are too committed to making the deal and are trying to take advantage of this. Or, their additional demands are truly important to them and they need you to agree. You have multiple options, but here is something that I do often: I explain that if something is truly important to them, I want to understand why and work with them to accommodate their legitimate concerns. But I am not willing to negotiate an individual issue in isolation — especially at this late stage in the negotiation. If they need adjustments, we will also have to discuss what kinds of concessions they are willing to make in exchange. If this is really important to them, they should be willing to show flexibility on other issues of value to me.

Tactic #3: “Great! Now let me double-check with my boss…”

What You Do: One piece of advice I give often is to negotiate process before substance.  For example: you’ve been negotiating for months, and just when you think the deal is done, they tell you that they need another six months, or that others need to sign off on it, or that they are now going to shop around your offer.  Many of these problems stem from a failure of not having negotiated process before substance. In other words, before getting too deep into deal terms, you want to get more information about (and try to shape) the process — i.e. how you will get from where you are today to the finish line.  This includes discussing questions such as: How long does it take an organization like yours to do a deal like this? Who are all the people who need to be on board? What might speed up or slow down the process?  What will we discuss in the meeting next week, and when will we cover the other concerns we have?  When you negotiate process before substance, you make it less likely that you make substance mistakes later on.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to See Through These 3 Hardball Negotiation Tactics

How to See Through These 3 Hardball Negotiation Tactics | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Tactic #1: “We will never…”

What You Do: My response to any ultimatum — regardless of the type of negotiation or how the ultimatum was delivered — is usually quite simple: I completely ignore it. I don’t ask people to repeat or clarify ultimatums. Why? Many ultimatums are not true deal-breakers. Sometimes people are just emotional, or trying to assert control, or using strong language in an attempt to gain advantage. In such these cases, it will be easier for them to back down later if you have not engaged with or legitimized the ultimatum.  How so? There may come a day — a week from now, a month from now, or years from now — when the other side realizes that what they said they could never do, they must do, or is actually in their best interest to do. When that day comes, the last thing I need is for them to remember me having heard them say they will never do so — because then they will not be able to say “yes” without losing face.  Too often, people will escalate matters, and even sacrifice their own best interests, if that’s the only way for them to save face.  If ignoring an ultimatum is not possible, you want to reframe their statement as a non-ultimatum before continuing.  For example, if they say “I will never do this,” I might respond as follows: “I can understand, given where we are today, this would be very difficult for you to do…”  This way, I’ve given them two ways out.  This would be “very difficult”, not impossible, and their reluctance is “given where we are today,” not forever.

Tactic #2: “Just one more thing…”

What You Do: It can be really frustrating when people keep adding new conditions when you think a deal has been struck. When it happens, it’s important to distinguish between two (of multiple) possibilities. They might think you are too committed to making the deal and are trying to take advantage of this. Or, their additional demands are truly important to them and they need you to agree. You have multiple options, but here is something that I do often: I explain that if something is truly important to them, I want to understand why and work with them to accommodate their legitimate concerns. But I am not willing to negotiate an individual issue in isolation — especially at this late stage in the negotiation. If they need adjustments, we will also have to discuss what kinds of concessions they are willing to make in exchange. If this is really important to them, they should be willing to show flexibility on other issues of value to me.

Tactic #3: “Great! Now let me double-check with my boss…”

What You Do: One piece of advice I give often is to negotiate process before substance.  For example: you’ve been negotiating for months, and just when you think the deal is done, they tell you that they need another six months, or that others need to sign off on it, or that they are now going to shop around your offer.  Many of these problems stem from a failure of not having negotiated process before substance. In other words, before getting too deep into deal terms, you want to get more information about (and try to shape) the process — i.e. how you will get from where you are today to the finish line.  This includes discussing questions such as: How long does it take an organization like yours to do a deal like this? Who are all the people who need to be on board? What might speed up or slow down the process?  What will we discuss in the meeting next week, and when will we cover the other concerns we have?  When you negotiate process before substance, you make it less likely that you make substance mistakes later on.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Preempt Team Conflict

How to Preempt Team Conflict | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Early discussions should touch on not only the risks of venting but also the danger of bottling things up. The tendency to signal irritation or discontent indirectly—through withdrawal, sarcasm, and privately complaining about one another—can be just as destructive as volatile outbursts and intimidation. It’s important to address the causes of disengagement directly, through open inquiry and debate, and come up with ways to disagree productively.

The benefits of anticipating and heading off conflict before it becomes destructive are immense. We’ve found that they include greater participation, improved creativity, and, ultimately, smarter decision making. As one manager put it: “We still disagree, but there’s less bad blood and a genuine sense of valuing each other’s contributions.”
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Count me in

Count me in | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Ms Hicks’s study, just published in Psychological Science, started off by doing what previous ones have done. She collaborated with a team of colleagues to round up 120 recently married local couples. The partners in these couples were then separated and each asked to fill in a questionnaire that inquired about how satisfied they were with their spouses and how often they had sex (a fact on which, despite what cynics might suspect, husband and wife generally agreed).

Ms Hicks, however, did not leave things there. She suspected the reason why past explorations of this subject have had mixed results is because many people want to believe their marriage is in a good state despite infrequent sex, or that frequent sex should not be important for maintaining a healthy relationship. Wanting to believe something is not, though, the same as actually believing it. So she needed a way to distinguish between the two.

Her answer was what is known as an automatic attitude test. Such tests measure instant feelings. Participants are shown an image and then presented with a word that is either positive (“wonderful”, “outstanding” or “charming”, for example) or negative (“awful”, “disturbing”, “horrible”). When they see this word they must indicate as quickly as they can, using a keyboard that measures their reaction time, whether it is positive or negative. Previous work has shown that faster reaction times to positive words and slower reaction times to negative ones suggest a participant has a positive attitude towards whatever he saw in the image. Slower reaction times to positive words and faster ones to negative words suggest the opposite.

To wield the test for her own purposes, Ms Hicks arranged for participants to work through several sets of words. The first set was a control, in which they ranked the words without seeing an image beforehand. The following sets were preceded either by another control (a picture of the participant him- or herself) or by a picture of the participant’s spouse.

Ms Hicks and her colleagues found that although the frequency with which couples have sex does not have much correlation with how satisfied they claim to be with their partner, it correlates well with their automatic attitudes towards one another. Those who said they had sex with their spouse two or more times a week reacted more quickly to positive words and more slowly to negative ones after seeing an image of said spouse. The opposite was true for those who had sex once a week or less. None of these effects emerged after people saw an image of themselves, or during the initial control.

Ms Hicks’s result does not mean the no-sex brigade are lying when they claim it does not signify. They may genuinely believe what they say. But it does suggest they are fooling themselves. And that is not a matter of mere prurience. If things do start to go wrong in a relationship, and the participants want to patch matters up, then understanding where the real problem lies is important. This is only a single study, of course. But if it is successfully replicated, marriage-guidance counsellors the world over might want to take note.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Tell a Coworker They’re Annoying You

How to Tell a Coworker They’re Annoying You | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

Step 1: Ask permission. Don’t just launch into your spiel. Say something like: “Our working relationship is important to me, and there’s something on my mind—can I talk to you about it?” If it’s a bad time, you don’t want to choose this moment for your chat; if it’s a good time, you’ve signaled your collaborative intent.

Step 2: Describe the “true facts.” The trick here is to pick one specific incident and describe what I call the “true facts”: the things you know for sure, stripped of emotion, interpretation, or generalization.  For me, that meant not saying things like “Your edits suck” or “You’re not giving me enough space.” These statements are debatable, because the other person can say “That’s not true.” And because they’re so broadly critical, they’re more likely to put your colleague’s brain on the defensive—meaning they won’t be at their most expansive and generous as they respond. Instead, aim for something that feels more like “What I noticed was [fact, fact, fact].” Be as precise and concrete as you can, even if you think there’s a big issue at stake. In my case, I said: “I noticed that in the last presentation, you rewrote the headings on fourteen of the twenty slides. The sentences got longer and less to-the-point.”


Step 3: Say how the “true facts” made you feel, and why this matters to you. Just like the “true facts,” your feelings aren’t disputable, and describing them explains why you’re raising the issue. Research has also found that you lower your stress levels when you carefully label your emotions. So I said: “That made me feel worried that I’m not understanding what you want from me.” Here, it helps not to use aggressive language. I was angry, for sure—but when I asked myself what deeper fear was underneath that anger, I realized it was a genuine worry that I was falling short. It also helps to add a sincere explanation of why this matters to you, to convey that this isn’t about you whining. It doesn’t have to be complicated. I simply said: “And I care about doing a good job.”

Step 4: Ask for their perspective. When we’ve built up our courage to broach a difficult topic, it’s easy to forget that we may not have the whole picture. In fact, we rarely do; we all suffer from a phenomenon known to scientists as “selective attention.” So make sure to ask: “What’s your perspective on this?” Pay real attention to their answer, even if you disagree. The idea is to understand what lies behind their behavior, to give you a better idea of how to solve the problem. In my case, it became clear that my manager’s goal had been to add what he called “more nuance” to my rather black-and-white messages. He wasn’t a skilled writer, so his edits weren’t very effective. But once I understood his aim, I could better see how to meet both his needs and mine.

Step 5: Do some joint problem solving. Finally, decide together how to improve the situation. Try asking them for their thoughts on this first, before building on their suggestions. This isn’t about caving in to hierarchy; it’s because research shows that people feel far more attachment to any idea that they’ve had a hand in shaping. So before I said “okay, here’s what I’ll do differently in the future, and here’s how I’d like to get input from you,” it paid dividends for me to ask: “what can I do to introduce more of the subtlety you’re missing?”

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Disagree with Someone More Powerful than You

How to Disagree with Someone More Powerful than You | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Principles to Remember


Do:

Explain that you have a different opinion and ask if you can voice it.
Restate the original point of view or decision so it’s clear you understand it.
Speak slowly — talking in an even tone calms you and the other person down.
Don’t:

Assume that disagreeing is going to damage your relationship or career — the consequences are often less dramatic than we think.
State your opinions as facts; simply express your point of view and be open to dialogue.
Use judgment words, such as “hasty,” “foolish,” or “wrong,” that might upset or incite your counterpart.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Leadership
Scoop.it!

Transparency and Leading Change: 3 Areas to Focus On

Transparency and Leading Change: 3 Areas to Focus On | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
"Thank you for your transparency!" These words came at the end of a presentation I gave where I shared a new strategy—a strategy that would require change, including new roles and some sacrifice, from everyone. I wasn’t sure how everyone would respond but I knew I would have my best chance of successfully leading the…

Via Anne Leong
Rob Duke's insight:
Transparency uses conflict as a positive tool instead of as a weapon (or something to be avoided)....
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

20 Ways to Reward Your Employees Without Spending a Dime

20 Ways to Reward Your Employees Without Spending a Dime | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
You won't need another loan from the bank when it comes to these 20 remarkably simple ways to make your employees feel appreciated.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

“Sleeping on It” Doesn’t Lead to Better Decisions

“Sleeping on It” Doesn’t Lead to Better Decisions | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Rebecca Spencer of UMass Amherst and her coresearchers, Uma Karmarkar of Harvard Business School and Baba Shiv of Stanford Business School, conducted a study in which they asked people to evaluate laptop cases for potential purchase. First, subjects were given pros and cons of the products to review. Some received the information late in the evening, shortly before they went to sleep, and others in the morning, when they had their day ahead of them. Twelve hours later, they were asked to choose a case and were also surveyed about the products and their satisfaction with their selections. The people who “slept on” their decision tended to feel worse about it.

The Challenge: Is the folk wisdom about thinking more clearly after a good night’s rest just a fable? Could it actually make your judgment worse? Professor Spencer, defend your research.

Spencer: It was evident that the people who made a decision the same day felt better about their choice than those who had slept on it. However, those who’d slept on it remembered more about the bags’ attributes. That surprised us. The fact that they knew more about the products would suggest they’d be happier with their decisions, but they weren’t.

HBR: Congratulations, your research invalidates age-old wisdom about making big decisions.
I wouldn’t say that. I wouldn’t say there’s no value to sleep with regard to decision making. We know that when we sleep, the brain is doing some processing that helps give us a clean slate. At a neurological level, information begins to get cleared out of the short-term memory space and moved into long-term memory space. So the proverbial belief that sleep gives you a fresh start is true. It not only impacts how we take on new information but also appears to have some surprising influence on past information.

How does it influence past information?
It wasn’t just that people who slept on it remembered more information. When we controlled for the number of positive and negative attributes in a follow-up study, we saw that folks who slept on it were more likely to remember the positive features and less likely to remember the negative ones.

Sleep makes us more positive?
That’s what was so surprising. Many studies have shown that we remember more negative things after sleeping. Then again, many of those studies were comparing negative with neutral, not negative with positive. So in the context of decision making, maybe sleep does make us focus on the good.

Why would people who remembered more good things be less satisfied with their choices?
It might be more difficult to make a decision by comparing good things with other good things than by comparing good with bad. I suspect that people are conflicted because after the fact, they think about the good things they didn’t choose. It may be—and this is something to study—that when we asked them, people felt they had made a poor decision, but over time they would come to decide that it was good.

I’d like to find a way to use your research to institute mandatory naps during the workday.

We have done a lot with naps. Naps are beneficial to adults, just as they are to little kids. What differs is that wakefulness is more detrimental to memory and information processing in kids, so it appears that naps do more for them. In this particular study, though, we eliminated people in the awake group who had taken a nap, so I can’t help you.
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Mediators Arbitration ADR
Scoop.it!

Top 5 Mediators/Arbitrators for ADR in San Francisco by Robert F.

Top 5 Mediators/Arbitrators for ADR in San Francisco by Robert F. | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) offers people and
businesses a faster, less expensive way to resolve their disputes than
traditional litigation. More importantly, it often leads to

Via Danial Shawn
more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Rob Duke from Criminology and Economic Theory
Scoop.it!

A compassionate judge sentences a veteran to 24 hours in jail, then joins him behind bars

While Serna’s years in combat earned him three Purple Hearts and other military accolades, like many combat vets, he’s been unable to leave the battlefield behind him. Since returning to the U.S., the decorated Green Beret has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, WTVD reported, and been charged with driving under the influence.

He entered the veteran’s treatment court program in Cumberland County, N.C., over which state District Court Judge Lou Olivera presides.

Serna has fought to stay sober, appearing before Olivera 25 times to have his progress reviewed. He confessed to Olivera that he lied about a recent urine test last week, according to WRAL.

In response, Olivera sentenced Serna to one day in jail.

The judge drove Serna to the jail in a neighboring county.

“When Joe first came to turn himself in, he was trembling,” Olivera told the Fayetteville Observer. “I decided that I’d spend the night serving with him.”

“Where are we going, judge?” Serna asked, the Observer’s Bill Kirby Jr., reported Wednesday.
more...
Mary Dombroski's comment, April 22, 4:18 PM
This is awesome! There was definitely a possibility that spending the night in there alone would trigger his PTSD again. Appearing 25 times is a lot though and I hope this veteran can get the help he desperately needs. This judge though didn't excuse him for lying and still had him pay for it, but had the compassion to do it with him.
Wyatt Duncan's comment, April 26, 3:51 AM
I love stories like this, the compassion that judge basis inspiring. Our veterans are often discredited for the things they see and go through. And do not receive enough support when returning home. God Bless these two.
max mckernan's comment, May 6, 6:22 PM
This is honestly the way justice should be. i think that helping people on an individual level is a very important thing