Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice
5.3K views | +0 today
Follow
 
Scooped by Rob Duke
onto Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice
Scoop.it!

French Workers Sue Goodyear In Ohio To Save Jobs

French Workers Sue Goodyear In Ohio To Save Jobs | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
The class-action lawsuit was filed in Summit County Common Pleas Court against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. on behalf of workers at its factory in Amiens, France.
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!

Law enforcement offer addicts treatment rather than jail time

Law enforcement offer addicts treatment rather than jail time | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Law enforcement in Pennsylvania County is looking into a new program to help those battling addiction.

What do you think about this?
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The Problem with Most Meetings Is That There’s Not Enough Debate

So how do you lead a good fight in meetings? Here are six practical tips:

Start by asking a question, not uttering your opinion. In one meeting I was invited to as an adviser, the boss started out by saying, “I think we should do X; I would like your opinion.” Then he went around the table, and everyone in the room raised their hand in support, with zero objections. If you want a real discussion, start with a question. Why? First, it frames the problem to be debated. If the problem is too general, the discussion will go all over the place; if it’s too narrow, that will limit the options. So spend time thinking about the best question. And make sure it isn’t leading, meaning it doesn’t bias the answers. Second, it signals that you want real debate, not just a charade of one. Third, it invites people with different ideas to speak up.

Help quiet people speak up (and don’t let the talkers dominate). Even with good questions, many people refrain from speaking up. Some are intimidated, particularly new hires and junior people. Others fear retribution. Some won’t speak their true opinions for political reasons. And introverted people dislike the discomfort of a rough-and-tumble discussion with loud voices. Yet many of these people have important contributions to make.

To draw them in, try to “warm call” them ahead of the meeting, as one top performer in my study did: “Sometimes I’ll talk to folks in advance of a meeting, saying, ‘Hey, we’re going to have this meeting. I know you have a particular viewpoint, and I think it’s very important that it gets heard, so I’d like to make sure you share it with the group.’” Then lend your support (“Thank you for that important input”). It’s better to try to get people to speak up in a group meeting than to revert to one-on-one discussions. When you get people to speak in meetings, you benefit from the group’s collective wisdom, so people can build on one another’s comments and ideas.

Make it safe for people to take risks — don’t let the sharks rule. Create an atmosphere of psychological safety, as Harvard professor Amy Edmondson calls it, a “climate in which people feel free to express work-relevant thoughts and feelings.” In my study, about one-fifth of participants (19%) were adept at creating such climates. As the data showed, those who scored highly performed better (the correlation was 0.63; perfect correlation would be 1.0, and random chance would be 0). A study of team effectiveness at Google showed the same.

To create such a climate, lead by example (“Let me just throw out a risky idea…”); support those who try (“I really appreciate you suggesting…”); and sanction those who ridicule others (“I don’t want that kind of language here…”).

Take the contrarian view. When I was teaching the American Express turnaround case at HBS, Harvey Golub, then the company’s CEO, came to class. He explained that he would often take the contrarian view: If the meeting was about raising the price for a service, he would show up and ask whether they should lower the price. It forced people to have really solid arguments for their views. A top performer in my study used a similar tactic to provoke a reaction: “I sometimes throw out a ridiculous answer; I find people will speak up and say ‘That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.’” You can also ask a colleague to play devil’s advocate, where you ask them, for the sake of argument, to take the opposing view. But make sure to get the opposing view on the table.

Dissect the three most fundamental assumptions. In the infamous Bay of Pigs Invasion, where President John F. Kennedy’s team launched a botched invasion of Cuba, his team failed to dissect a crucial assumption — that the invasion by some 1,400 Cuban exiles would lead to a popular uprising against the Castro regime. President Kennedy might well have called off the flawed plan had he known how shaky that assumption was. To avoid such calamities, go after assumptions like a prosecutor goes after a criminal: Do a deep dive yourself, get other experts to dive deep, and get the team to be extremely thorough. One of the managers in our study kept asking the team one tough question: “What are the key assumptions, and what data will make them flawed?”

Cultivate transparent advocates (and get rid of the hard sellers). When you buy a used vehicle on a car lot in the United States, the salesperson will tell you everything that’s good about the car and nothing that’s bad. That’s the hard sell — highlighting the positives and downplaying the negatives. You want people to propose ideas and be passionate about them, but you also want them to be totally honest about the potential negatives. The problem is that there’s a human tendency to shift from being a transparent advocate (showing the plan, warts and all) to becoming a used car salesperson: People are led astray by confirmation bias, where they pay attention to data that confirms their idea, and they escalate commitments by continuing to advocate for their plans even in the face of negative information. You can combat this tendency by forcing people to show the negative: “When you present in the meeting tomorrow, I want to see a slide with the five biggest risks, and we will spend lots of time discussing them, so be prepared.” Or you can ask for a pre-mortem: “Assuming your idea will fail, what would be the key reasons for the failure?”

The purpose of a meeting is to have a debate that will result in a great decision. How you as a manager or participant behave in those meetings to improve debate matters a great deal. Don’t hate meetings; make them better.
Rob Duke's insight:
All 6 points are great advice.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Brian Calley: Being smart on crime is changing lives in Michigan

Treatment, job training can lower recidivism in prison population.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Save a Meeting That’s Gotten Tense

How to Save a Meeting That’s Gotten Tense | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

On March 30, 2017, Salt Lake County Mayor Ben McAdams stood in front of crowd of over 1,000 angry citizens. McAdams had recently floated the idea of situating a new homeless resource center in Draper, a city 20 miles south of Salt Lake City, Utah. What began as an orderly public meeting soon degenerated into chaotic shouts, curses, and political threats as one Draper resident after another told the mayor emphatically that this would not happen in their backyard.

As volume increased and value declined, McAdams stood up. He was greeted by boos, hisses, and invective. Residents competed noisily for his attention in a way that guaranteed no one would be heard. In one remarkable moment, McAdams drew close enough to a microphone that his voice penetrated the din. Wearing a kindly and serene expression, he uttered a simple, sincere statement that brought remarkable and immediate quiet: “This is your meeting. If you want to yell and shout, you are welcome to do that all night long. I will listen as long as you want.”

I’ve spent thirty years watching this happen — but have rarely seen the effect with such immediacy as happened that night in Draper.

It can be surprisingly easy to bring order to a chaotic meeting — and to turn conflict back into conversation — if you know how. Perhaps you don’t have an angry mob yelling at your meeting but there are lots of crises that managers face when a meeting goes off the rails. Here are some examples:

Mutual monologue. The conflict is more apparent than real. People are struggling to be heard, repeating points with increasing intensity. You’re scratching your head trying to understand what all the excitement is about.
Battle of the silos. Team members are fighting for resources or authority to advance their parochial interests.
Hidden agenda. The stated conversation is different from the real conversation. For example, we’re discussing the location of an office and it appears personal commute distances are driving the decision.
Pandemonium. The problem isn’t so much presence of conflict as lack of order. The discussion shifts from topic to topic with no resolution. The result is lots of heat but very little light. It always falls to the manager to impose order.
Wounded warrior. The discussion has left someone feeling personally hurt. They are now lashing out opportunistically to salve their ego.
These are only a few of a much longer list of group productivity killers. Regardless of what’s happening in your specific meeting, the principal cause of most conflicts is a struggle for validation. This means that most conflict is not intractable because the root cause is not irreconcilable differences, but a basic unmet need.

Take Chris and Alan, for example. Chris is trying to staff projects. Alan is focused on staff development plans. Alan needs to pull employees off projects to attend trainings. Chris is frustrated because their absence interrupts project work. When overlapping and divergent interests (as exist in every team) are combined with communication that invalidates someone’s needs, the result is almost always escalating conflict and personal animus. For example, in a meeting where Alan is trying to get team input and support for an ambitious development effort, Chris takes pot shots at the fuzzy nature of the training objectives.

A naïve observer might conclude that the conflict is about competing goals or personal friction. It isn’t. The problem is that an unskilled manager is abetting invalidating communication. The solution is as straightforward as the problem: offer and deliver agitated participants a trustworthy process — one they can trust will allow them to be heard. Here are four steps for turning conflict into conversation:

Interrupt the chaos. All emotions have a tempo. Calm emotions like happiness and connection are slow and deliberate. Emotions of arousal like hostility and defensiveness are fast and confused. Pulse quickens, thoughts race, and words fly. One of the best ways to change the emotion of a group is to change its tempo. As you attempt to intervene, decelerate your pace of speech. You may need to raise your voice a decibel or two to be heard above the rumble. But once you’ve attracted attention, lower your voice and speed. For example, you might say slowly and calmly, “Hey team, let me take a moment to point out something I’m noticing.” 


Shift to process. Call attention to what is happening in a matter-of-fact way. This helps in three ways: First, you give egos and tempers a chance to cool by changing the subject of discussion from the immediate problem to the problem-solving process. Second, you help the group soften their judgements of one another by giving them a unifying common enemy: the ineffective process. And third, you advance team maturity by inviting all to take responsibility for inventing a more effective process. Be careful not to shame anyone for their role in the confusion. Lay out what appears to be happening, without assigning blame, and the consequences of continuation on the current path. Once you’ve described the obvious, ask the group to confirm your observation. This is a critical psychological step. When they explicitly acknowledge the process problem, they become committed to supporting the solution. For example, you might continue with, “We’ve been at this conversation for about 25 minutes now. In my view we are repeating a lot of the same arguments, but getting nowhere. I suspect we could go another three hours and be in the same place. Do others see this the same way?” 


Propose a structure. Offer a process that ensures all will be heard and slows the pace in order to quell the emotions. Then ask for commitment to it. For example, you might say, “Carmine, I don’t think we’re giving you a chance to lay out your arguments for the office remodel. How about if we hear you out first. The rest of us will attempt to restate your arguments until you feel we understand them to your satisfaction. Kam, then I suggest we do the same with your view of why we should put it off for three more years. Will that work?” 


Honor the agreement. Odds are that even with the new structure, lingering emotions will incite a few attempts to breach the boundaries. When this happens, you need not become punitive. All you have to do is point out the discrepancy, and ask if they want to continue with their commitment. For example, “Kam, you are beginning to explain why remodeling now is a bad idea. I think our agreement was to allow Carmine to continue until she has been well heard. Do you want to continue with that process or propose something different?” Given that the team bought into the structure, Kam is likely to conform to the healthier structure – or the others in the room will encourage him to.
This is exactly what Ben McAdams when he approached the podium during the public meeting about the homeless resource center. He remained calm and patient while the crowd erupted into jeers and shouts. When he sensed a slight lull, he interrupted the chaos and shifted their attention to process with his statement, “This is your meeting. If you want to yell and shout you are welcome to do that all night long, I will listen as long as you want.” Then sensing that they might be ready for his response, he proposed a structure: “If and when you’d like to hear what I have to say, I’ll take my turn. But not until it is quiet. I won’t yell to be heard.”

The crowd quieted down and he began to speak. Soon a man from the audience came on stage and stood intimidatingly close to Mayor McAdams. Rather than fight for control, McAdams simply honored the agreement. Facing the audience, the mayor said, “It appears someone wants the microphone, I’ll sit down and wait my turn unless you direct otherwise.” As the mayor gave way to the new arrival the audience yelled for the man to sit down and let the mayor speak. After a few uninterrupted minutes the mayor said something many took exception to with shouts and profanity. He once again honored the agreement by sitting down until their fury was dispelled by an even larger group who yelled at them to let the mayor finish.

In spite of the fact that the majority of those present adamantly disagreed with the mayor, their fury dissipated when offered a trustworthy process. They were capable of subordinating their immediate demands when they had confidence they would be truly heard.

While there are times when foes are so entrenched in their positions that simple interventions like this will be inadequate, for the vast majority of workplace group tiffs, this works. Next time conflict starts to boil up in your meeting, try focusing on the process rather than the content, and chances are that you’ll be able to defuse the anger and frustration long enough to move forward.

Rob Duke's insight:
1. Interrupt the Chaos;
2. Shift to Process;
3. Propose a Structure; and
4. Honor the Agreement.

This moves people away from unrealistic conflict (see Lewis Coser) and keeps the dialog away from topics that suppress conflict.  Instead it focuses on the failed process, allows tempers and egos to cool down, softening the combatants feelings for one another, thereby helping the entire team to mature and strengthen.
more...
Rob Duke's curator insight, December 29, 2017 12:01 PM
1. Interrupt the Chaos; 
2. Shift to Process; 
3. Propose a Structure; and 
4. Honor the Agreement. 

 This moves people away from unrealistic conflict (see Lewis Coser) and keeps the dialog away from topics that suppress conflict. Instead it focuses on the failed process, allows tempers and egos to cool down, softening the combatants feelings for one another, thereby helping the entire team to mature and strengthen.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The importance of pauses in conversation

The importance of pauses in conversation | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

“Um”, “uh”, “mm-hmm” and interruption are not killers of conversation, but its lubricants

MARGARET THATCHER was known for a voice that brooked no disagreement. While still in opposition, she had taken elocution lessons to sound more forceful. Despite this, she was often interrupted in interviews as prime minister, and in 1982, three researchers set out to understand why. They played clips from one of her interviews to a variety of people. The clips included segments that ended in interruption (while editing out the interruptions themselves). More often than not, those hearing the interrupted phrases thought that the prime minister was ending her conversational turn. It seems her interviewer had come to a similar conclusion.

Why? Conversation, it turns out, is a finely tuned machine, as Nick Enfield, a linguist at the University of Sydney, suggests in “How We Talk”. Humans mostly follow a rule called “no gap, no overlap”, reacting to the end of a conversational turn by beginning their own in about 200 milliseconds—about the time it takes a sprinter to respond to the starting gun. This is all the more remarkable given that it takes about 600 milliseconds for someone to work out what they are going to say by mentally retrieving the words and organising how they are to be expressed.

People, therefore, must plan to begin speaking before their conversation partner has stopped. That requires a fine attention to the cues signalling the end of a turn, such as a lengthening of syllables and a drop in pitch. As it happens, using a downward shift of pitch is also a frequent piece of advice given to those who want to sound more authoritative—like Thatcher. The researchers studying the times she was interrupted found precisely that a sharp drop in her pitch accurately predicted an interruption.

Contrary to popular assumptions, many dynamics of the “conversational machine” are similar from culture to culture, something that Mr Enfield demonstrates by looking at both big and small languages in rich and poor countries alike. For example, take “no gap, no overlap”. The cross-cultural differences in this timing are small, and not always what stereotypes would suggest. Though the Japanese are often said to be polite, they have one of the shortest gaps before starting conversational replies. In answering “yes” or “no” to a question, the Japanese, on average, even reply before the questioner’s turn is over.

This is not because the Japanese are rude. Quite the opposite. Answering quickly moves the conversation along. In general, two people speaking try to help each other. And to a remarkable degree, they succeed. Take some of the words that are generally considered conversational detritus: “uh”, “um” and “mm-hmm”. “Uh” and “um” signal to the other speaker that a turn is not quite finished, that the speaker is planning something more. This makes sense only in the light of the split-second timing with which speakers take turns. Men use these pause-fillers more than women, being perhaps more eager to hold the floor. (For unknown reasons they prefer “uh”, and women, “um”.) Those who tend not to use “um” and “uh” often just replace it with something else, like “so”, much derided as meaningless at the beginning of a statement.

Like “um” and “uh”, humble “mm-hmm” and “uh-huh” are critical too. Listeners use them to show they have understood the speaker and are sympathetic. To show their importance, researchers concocted a devilish experiment in which speakers were asked to tell about a near-death experience, while listeners were given a distracting task like pressing a button every time the speaker used a word starting with “T”. As a result, the listener was less able to encourage the speaker with “mm-hmm”. This drove the speakers themselves to distraction. They paused more, used more “um” and “uh” themselves, and repeated the dramatic lines of their stories, desperate for affirmation that they had been understood.

Cicero wrote a set of rules of conversation, which included taking turns and not going on too long. He thought he was the first to do so, but his rules have been rediscovered in culture after culture. They may be part of human beings’ shared social instincts, a product of evolution. So, next time you find yourself in conversation with a bulldozer or a bore, you might feel sorry for them, rather than for yourself. They are lacking a basic human skill. From a certain point of view, what is fascinating about conversation is not how hard it is, but how well people subconsciously co-operate to make it seem easy.

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

Wal-Mart Suspends a Controversial Shoplifting Punishment

Wal-Mart Suspends a Controversial Shoplifting Punishment | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Wal-Mart suspended programs that require suspected shoplifters to undergo an education program for a fee.
Rob Duke's insight:
Described as Restorative, but it failed to restore the offender or  the community....

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

What Motivates Employees More: Rewards or Punishments?

What Motivates Employees More: Rewards or Punishments? | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

The 18th-century polymath Jeremy Bentham once wrote, “Pain and pleasure govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think.” Modern neuroscience strongly supports Bentham’s intuition. The brain’s limbic system, which is important for emotion and motivation, projects to the rest of the brain, influencing every aspect of our being, from our ability to learn, to the people we befriend, to the decisions we make.

It is not surprising, then, that when we attempt to motivate people, we try to elicit an anticipation of pleasure by promising rewards (for example, a bonus, a promotion, positive feedback, public recognition), or we try to warn of the pain of punishment (a demotion, negative feedback, public humiliation). But what’s not always clear is: Which should we be using — the promise of carrots or the threat of sticks? And when?

A study conducted at a New York state hospital provides some answers. The goal of the study was to increase the frequency by which medical staff washed their hands, as sanitization in medical settings is extremely important for preventing the spread of disease. The medical staff is repeatedly made aware of this, and warning signs about the consequences of unsanitized hands are often placed alongside sanitization gel dispensers. Yet cameras installed to monitor every sink and hand sanitizer dispenser in the hospital’s intensive care unit revealed that only 10% of medical staff sanitized their hands before and after entering a patient’s room. This was despite the fact that the employees knew they were being recorded.

Then an intervention was introduced: An electronic board was placed in the hallway of the unit that gave employees instant feedback. Every time they washed their hands the board displayed a positive message (such as “Good job!”) and the current shift’s hand-hygiene score would go up. Compliance rates rose sharply and reached almost 90% within four weeks, a result that was replicated in another division in the hospital.

Why did this intervention work so well? The answer provides a general lesson that goes beyond hand washing.

The brilliance of the electronic board was that, instead of using the threat of spreading disease, the common approach in this situation, the researchers chose a positive strategy. Every time a staff member washed their hands, they received immediate positive feedback. Positive feedback triggers a reward signal in the brain, reinforcing the action that caused it, and making it more likely to be repeated in the future.

But why would inconsequential positive feedback be a stronger motivator than the possibility of spreading disease? This may seem odd, but it fits well with what we know about the human brain.

Neuroscience suggests that when it comes to motivating action (for example, getting people to work longer hours or producing star reports), rewards may be more effective than punishments. And the inverse is true when trying to deter people from acting (for example, discouraging people from sharing privileged information or using the organization’s resources for private purposes) — in this case, punishments are more effective. The reason relates to the characteristics of the world we live in.

To reap rewards in life, whether it is a piece of cherry pie, a loved one, or a promotion, we usually need to act, to approach. So our brain has evolved to accommodate an environment in which often the best way to gain rewards is to take action. When we expect something good, our brain initiates a “go” signal. This signal is triggered by dopaminergic neurons deep in the mid-brain that move up through the brain to the motor cortex, which controls action.

In contrast, to avoid bad things — poison, deep waters, untrustworthy people — we usually simply need to stay put, to not reach out. So our brain has evolved to accommodate an environment in which often (though not always) the best way to not get hurt is to avoid action altogether. When we anticipate something bad, our brain triggers a “no go” signal. These signals also originate in the mid-brain and move up to the cortex, but unlike “go” signals, they inhibit action, sometimes causing us to freeze altogether. (Even in situations where real danger is imminent, the freeze response often precedes the fight-or-flight response that may follow it, like a deer in the headlights.)

This asymmetry partially explains why electronic positive feedback was more successful at motivating the medical staff to wash their hands than the threat of illness to themselves and others. There are a number of other reasons too, such as social incentives, that I uncovered when researching and writing my book.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Stop Squeezing Prisoners' Families for Cash

Stop Squeezing Prisoners' Families for Cash | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Replacing visitors' hours with costly videoconferencing is a short-sighted policy.
Rob Duke's insight:
There's a balancing act.  While goods and services are expensive, especially with a middleman, we find that purely third-party vendors tend to cheat and jeopardize security or smuggle in contraband.  Equally bad, most of the time, is having inefficient government bureaucracy provide goods and services.  Given this, the option of having a bonded and regulated third party is probably the best option, because we get security and it's not as prone to error or waste as is a bureaucracy.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Rabbi Brings Her Vision to Sheriff Oversight Panel

Rabbi Brings Her Vision to Sheriff Oversight Panel | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
When Rabbi Heather Miller visited a jail for the first time in February, the conditions took her by surprise. “I saw grown men who society demonize
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How to Navigate the Politics of an Innovation Project

How to Navigate the Politics of an Innovation Project | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it

Everyone wants innovation in their organization; it drives growth and revenues, promotes cultural change, and moves society forward.

We often forget, however, that meaningful innovation efforts can have a disruptive side. Namely, some people’s ideas will win, and those of others will lose. That’s because innovation requires allocation and deployment of organizational resources, often significant amounts, without definitive proof of future returns. This ambiguity allows politics to enter into the choice process, as people attempt to influence decision-makers toward favoring innovations that advance their individual interests.

Thus, when early-stage innovations or those that need to be implemented to collect performance data lack hard performance evidence, politics tend to preserve the current state of power and control over physical and social resources. For example, interviews with managers of established technology hardware firms showed that their resource-allocation processes favored sustaining innovations (those that had high margins and targeted large, well-known markets and customers) over disruptive innovations (those that had yet to generate hard evidence on their benefits).4

The good news is that those interested in promoting innovation can use these politics to work for them, as Denise did in four steps.

Step 1: Anticipate Resistance
Part of the motivation for innovation is the constant clamor within organizations — especially from leadership — for original, creative ideas. “Think outside the box” has become a ubiquitous directive, aimed at spurring off-the-beaten-path strategies, tactics, and viewpoints, whether related to products, operations, or marketing.

But in most cases, the resources needed to back innovation have already been deployed or earmarked for existing agenda items. Diverting any significant portion of those already-dedicated resources to your new idea might jeopardize existing initiatives’ chances for success. This dilemma can result in resistance or apathy for your idea — even among those who really like it — because people can’t afford to prematurely pull the plug on an initiative they already have a stake in.

That’s exactly what happened to Denise when she first proposed her efficiency idea to the firm’s business unit heads. They were immediately dismissive, citing the high transaction costs of processes like coordinating the different part numbers used across different units. The idea appeared dead on arrival. After all, even the most promising innovations are unlikely to be adopted if they threaten the success of current initiatives and investments that leaders must show returns on. But Denise’s innovation gained new life later when she tied the idea more clearly to an existing corporate agenda at the firm.

If you know what people might object to then you can position your innovation strategically: as something new and creative, but not as a resource-depleting departure from the organization’s existing agenda. That is, you can make the idea “just fresh enough.” This approach provides supporters with a direct benefit of adopting your new idea.


Step 2: Unmask Political Motives
The second step is to reconcile publicly stated resistance to your idea with its true, hidden motivation.

When politics are part of the decision process, colleagues may not present all the real reasons they oppose your innovation. Instead they’ll offer publicly acceptable reasons — a presentable “mask” that often has to do with practical considerations such as costs, time, or complexity, but not reasons that reveal clearly their individual interests.

In our example, the public reason the business unit executives gave for opposing Denise’s innovation was the potentially high transaction costs it would entail. That sounds reasonable enough, and it was a valid problem that had to be solved for her innovation to work. But in addition to the transaction-costs problem, Denise surmised that there was an underlying political motive that also had to be addressed.

First, she knew that her innovative initiative was conceptually solid but lacked hard performance data.  Second, she found out that the unit heads stockpiled their inventory, a costly arrangement for the whole company, to limit their unit’s chance of shortages and delays (incidentally potentially keeping inventory from other units that had run through their own stockpile). Thus, she reasoned that some of the business units would view the indirect benefits of better companywide performance as less valuable to them than preserving their current “me-first” motivations.

Confronting people directly about any hidden motives is unlikely to be effective. Instead, Denise tried to get behind the political mask when company leaders launched a new strategic initiative to improve the firm’s overall return on assets (inventory being one kind of asset). In this shifting context, Denise saw an opportunity to advance her innovation, but she needed to expand her network to do so.

Step 3: Find the Right Champion
While the new return-on-assets mandate theoretically required business units to work together, there wasn’t yet sufficient motive for most unit executives to adopt Denise’s plan. She lacked sufficient clout.

That changed when Denise found the right champion for her idea.

Specifically, now that Denise recognized the politics of innovation — driven by the winners and losers it created — she had to find a senior executive more likely to come out a winner through implementation. She found that in the firm’s Director of Corporate Logistics and Information Systems, whom I’ll call Pramesh.

Pramesh created a technology patch that made inventory transfers swift and accurate across the diverse inventory-tracking systems used by different business units. This negated the public complaint that Denise’s innovation was too costly. Pramesh also solved the political problem because he was accountable for company-wide performance and therefore seen as motivated to boost corporate-wide profits. The business units valued their individual profits over corporate returns. Denise was able to get Pramesh on board by emphasizing that her initiative benefited corporate-wide profits first and foremost.

Even with this management support, Denise still had one more hurdle to clear before going wide with her idea: providing “social proof” for the innovation’s merit.

Step 4: Secure Social Proof
Most forms of innovation face a common dilemma: people won’t support an idea without sufficient evidence it works, but securing data-based evidence for an idea’s effectiveness requires launching it in some form.

You can get around this dilemma by providing alternative evidence for the idea’s potential, in the form of social proof. Here the goal is not to collect hard data on projected outcomes, but to create a critical mass of people who believe in the innovation sufficiently to give it a try. Once that critical mass is achieved, more people will be willing to support the idea.


Social proof is the mechanism behind people’s beliefs in everything from the effectiveness of a laundry detergent to the dangers of climate change. Even when facts are readily available — such as the solubility of the detergent in hot water or the rate of the projected rise in global temperature — people use social proof as a framework for what to believe. In many cases, if enough people we trust believe in something, we’re willing to, as well.

The same goes for innovation.

Denise, with Pramesh’s help, recruited a growing number of colleagues to back her efficiency innovation, including those with ties to the unit leaders. This social proof, even in the absence of hard data, helped sway the unit executives, and the firm implemented the idea, driving significant cost-savings from the start.

Solving the politics of innovation can often be as — or more — challenging than formulating the innovation itself. But taking a strategic, step-by-step approach to these dynamics can effectively bridge the often-wide gap between idea and implementation.

Rob Duke's insight:
Step 1: Anticipate Resistance 
Step 2: Unmask Political Motives 
Step 3: Find the Right Champion 
Step 4: Secure Social Proof

This is a lot like Kurt Lewin's Force-Field Analysis (1951):  
1. Loosen organizational bonds that resist change;
2. Look for forces that oppose you: Weaken those;
3. Look for forces that support you: Strengthen these;
4. Move the organization; and
5. Re-freeze the organization.

Also see Bruce Tuckman's Forming; Norming; Storming; Performing; and Adjourning model (1965).
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Privatized Justice: ‘Re-Educating’ the American Shoplifter

Privatized Justice: ‘Re-Educating’ the American Shoplifter | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
As Americans head to stores and malls this holiday season, many retailers have a warning for shoplifters.

If you’re caught, expect to be “sentenced” to a course run by a private company aimed at correcting your behavior–and to pay as much as $500 for the privilege.

Since 2011, large chains such as Walmarts have been contracting out their security to a for-profit corporation, The Corrective Education Company (CEC), which does exactly as its name implies: punish wrongdoers with a mandatory educational program aimed at deterring offenders from repeating their behavior.
Rob Duke's insight:
RJ or just another profit center for the retail giants?
more...
Devin Ryan Johnson's comment, December 4, 2017 10:08 PM
I see it as a form of RJ. It allows for the shoplifter to keep a clean record as long as they complete the required class.
Rob Duke's comment, December 6, 2017 1:29 PM
Yes, as long as it doesn't become just a "profit-center" for the retailers. I also worry that they may not have folks running the program that are truly looking for restorative outcomes...but, it does look better than the alternative.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Jesuit priest mediated Mugabe's resignation

Jesuit priest mediated Mugabe's resignation | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
He became lead negotiator because both Mugabe and the military trusted him. The 70-year-old Jesuit priest from Zimbabwe said he's mediated between bitter political rivals in the past.
"I'm a tough nut to crack," he said. "I've done this before."
Mukonori said his strategy was never to argue with Mugabe, but rather to listen and convince Mugabe he could exit the political stage with nobility.
Zimbabwe's society struggled under Mugabe's rule
"He is a debater, he is a thinker, he argues intelligently, he can philosophize," Mukonori said. "It was a question of making President Mugabe see what was happening in the country economically and politically at that time and what was at stake with regard to issues pertaining to the soldiers moving in."
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime? The Elusive Promise of Algorithms

Fewer Prisoners, Less Crime? The Elusive Promise of Algorithms | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Early evidence suggests some risk assessment tools offer promise in rationalizing decisions on granting bail without racial bias. But we still need to monitor how judges actually use the algorithms, says a Boston attorney.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

How Increasing Drug Treatment Could Lower Crime

How Increasing Drug Treatment Could Lower Crime | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Sam Bondurant, Jason Lindo, and Isaac Swensen of Brookings studied what happened to crime when local substance abuse treatment facilities opened or closed. They found that an increase in the number of treatment facilities causes a reduction in both violent and financially-motivated crime. This is likely due to a combination of forces: reducing drug abuse can reduce violent behavior that is caused by particular drugs, as well as property crimes like theft committed to fund an addiction. Reducing demand for illegal drugs might also reduce violence associated with the illegal drug trade. The authors estimate that each additional treatment facility in a county reduces the social costs of crime in that county by $4.2 million per year. Annual costs of treatment in a facility are approximately $1.1 million, so the benefits far exceed the costs.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Sentencing Law and Policy: Spotlighting felon disenfranchisement in Florida

Sentencing Law and Policy: Spotlighting felon disenfranchisement in Florida | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
It didn’t matter whether their crime was murder or driving with a suspended license, nor whether they had fully served their sentence. In Florida, the voting ban is entrenched in the Constitution, and it’s for life.  Today, Florida disenfranchises almost 1.5 million of its citizens, more than 11 states’ populations and roughly a quarter of the more than six million Americans who are unable to vote because of a criminal record.

Felon disenfranchisement is a destructive, pointless policy that hurts not only individuals barred from the ballot box, but American democracy at large.  Its post-Civil War versions are explicitly racist, and its modern-day rationales are thin to nonexistent. It can make all the difference in places like Florida, which didn’t stop being competitive in 2000; the state remains a major presidential battleground, and victories for both parties in state and local elections are often narrow.

That could all change if a proposed constitutional amendment gets enough signatures to be placed on the ballot in November and wins enough support.  The initiative would automatically restore voting rights to the vast majority of Floridians who have completed their sentence for a felony conviction, including any term of parole or probation.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

30 years after Prozac arrived, we still buy the lie that chemical imbalances cause depression

30 years after Prozac arrived, we still buy the lie that chemical imbalances cause depression | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Despite the lack of evidence, the theory has saturated society. In their 2007 paper, Lacasse and Leo point to dozens of articles in mainstream publications that refer to chemical imbalances as the unquestioned cause of depression. One New York Times article on Joseph Schildkraut, the psychiatrist who first put forward the theory in 1965, states that his hypothesis “proved to be right.” When Lacasse and Leo asked the reporter for evidence to support this unfounded claim, they did not get a response. A decade on, there are still dozens of articles published every month in which depression is unquestionably described as the result of a chemical imbalance, and many people explain their own symptoms by referring to the myth.

Meanwhile, 30 years after Prozac was released, rates of depression are higher than ever.

* * *

Hyman responds succinctly when I ask him to discuss the causes of depression: “No one has a clue,” he says.

There’s not “an iota of direct evidence” for the theory that a chemical imbalance causes depression, Hyman adds. Early papers that put forward the chemical imbalance theory did so only tentatively, but, “the world quickly forgot their cautions,” he says.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Las Vegas shooting survivors ask, ‘What about us?’

Las Vegas shooting survivors ask, ‘What about us?’ | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
A group of about 150 survivors of the Oct. 1 Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting delivered a recurring message Tuesday: “What about us?”
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Police: Ohio postal worker facing dismissal kills 2 bosses

Police: Ohio postal worker facing dismissal kills 2 bosses | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
A disgruntled mail carrier facing dismissal has been charged with aggravated murder for fatally shooting his supervisor at a suburban Ohio post office and with murder for killing a postmaster outside of her apartment complex.

Twenty-four-year-old DeShaune Stewart, of Columbus, was naked during both slayings Saturday morning inside the Dublin post office and at an apartment complex in nearby Columbus, police said.

Stewart is charged with killing 52-year-old Lance Dempsey at the post office just before 4:30 a.m. Stewart had been scheduled to walk his mail route on Saturday, Columbus homicide Sgt. David Sicilian said.

Columbus police dispatchers received a 911 call around 7:15 a.m. about a man with a gun chasing a woman outside the apartment complex, about 4 miles (6 kilometers) from the post office. Patrol officers arrested Stewart and recovered a handgun after he tried to run away.
Rob Duke's insight:
You rarely hear about violence in the post office anymore.  Folger and Bush were hired to revamp the discipline process and largely cured what ailed that organization in terms of dispute resolution strategies.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

California’s chief justice: ‘I’ve had a few me-toos’

California’s chief justice: ‘I’ve had a few me-toos’ | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
California's chief justice said Monday she's had her own encounters with sexual misconduct in the legal profession, and described the recent flood of harassment revelations as evidence of women's persistent inequality in the workplace.

"I've had a few 'me-toos' in the past, but I'm not telling them, at least not on the record," Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said in her annual meeting with reporters. She did mention "being called 'sugar' and 'honey' and 'dear' and 'girl' when I was a trial lawyer" in the Sacramento County district attorney's office in the 1980s.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Program: Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Probationers in California - CrimeSolutions.gov

This is an enhanced probation intervention targeted at high-risk individuals in three counties in California. The program is rated No Effects. There were no statistically significant effects of the intervention on rearrest. At one site, the treatment group had statistically significantly more technical violations, than the comparison group; however, there were no statistically significant effects on technical violation rates at the other two sites.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

U.S. Crime Rate is Stable, Victimization Survey Says

U.S. Crime Rate is Stable, Victimization Survey Says | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
The national crime rate last year remained about the same as the 2015 total, the U.S. Justice Department's National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) reported Thursday. Residents aged 12 or older experienced 5.7 million violent victimizations, a rate of 21.1 per 1,000 persons in 2016.
Rob Duke's insight:
Official rates might be up, but victims are still reporting about the same amount of crime.
Do official rates reflect some bias in the system?  One way this might be the case is in how crimes are classified.  Thus, a minor assault might be classified as an aggravated one.
Conversely, victims might be reporting erroneously.  How many times have you heard someone say: "I've been robbed!" only to find out that someone stole something from them, but it was hardly a robbery (using force or fear).
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

California High Court Upholds State-Mandated Mediation for Farmworkers

The California Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to the nation’s most recognizable agricultural labor unions, unanimously overturning an appellate ruling that state-mandated contract mediati…
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

As More and More Prisons Shutter, Governments Wonder What to Do With Them

As More and More Prisons Shutter, Governments Wonder What to Do With Them | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
Distilleries? Homeless shelters? Museums? There are lots of creative ideas for repurposing old lockups. But finding one that's good for the economy -- and wins approval -- isn't easy.
more...
Devin Ryan Johnson's comment, December 4, 2017 10:07 PM
I think the best thing to do with them is to turn them into a homeless shelter. It will help provide a safe place for the homeless to lay their head and clean up.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

The Workplace Culture In Congress Fuels Sexual Harassment

The Workplace Culture In Congress Fuels Sexual Harassment | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
The wave of sexual harassment allegations that has rippled across industries — implicating Hollywood producers and stars, chefs, Olympic coaches and officials,…
Rob Duke's insight:
The ugly side of ADR is that it can be used inappropriately.  In the case here, Congress continues to be a cesspool of sexual harassment because they use ADR to discourage reports.  The victim is forced to go through 2 months of counseling, then work with a mediator before they can file a formal complaint.
more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by Rob Duke
Scoop.it!

Does Evidence Matter in Justice Policymaking?

Does Evidence Matter in Justice Policymaking? | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, and Restorative Justice | Scoop.it
For two decades, criminal justice advocates have been promoting the idea of basing anticrime policy on scientific evidence. But is anyone listening? Leading criminologists address the question at a Philadelphia conference.
more...
No comment yet.