In the case of good books, the point is not how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you. -Mortimer J. Adler, philosopher, educator and author (1902-2001)

This summer I bought a Kindle: I succumbed only to reconcile the conflict between how many books I can read in two weeks and the weight of luggage allowed on most airlines! I loved it from the moment I unpacked it. More interestingly, my reading habits have changed. I didn’t expect that.

I am trying to decide whether I am more or less discerning about what I read. The jury is still out.

What I do know is that I can get hold of information that I need much more quickly and not just books. PDFs of articles and research papers can easily be turned into ‘Kindle ready documents’ via the free conversion service which is almost instant. Just email the pdf to your Kindle email address with ‘convert’ in the subject line.

However, the most compelling feature for me, which beats even the speed of delivery, is the clippings feature. I can mark a passage and that passage is saved in my clippings folder, fully referenced. This has not only added ease and efficiency to my work and writing, it has reduced my stress levels. Now, I can mark up ideas and organise them so that when I need them I can find them and I can include the proper attribution.

Making a proper attribution or giving credit for great work is deeply important to me. I know how hard it is to organise thoughts and write them down so they will stand scrutiny. I will hunt high and low for the part of the book which has influenced me – even if I have developed or reworked the idea. However, given the number of books and articles I read, it is sometimes a  struggle to remember where and by whom. I will include a book rather than leave it out, if I am not sure.

I write to encourage people to think more deeply about what we do and why we do it. I am deeply appreciative of those who have worked hard to clarify their own thoughts to the point that it has real relevance for me and I want to thank them. I do get fed up with people who partly rework my articles and research and don’t mention the contribution that I have or anyone else has made to their thinking or teaching.

I can’t do anything about the behaviour of others but I can make sure I am better at doing it myself.

Thanks Kindle.

This article first appeared in a free magazine called Boss Bishop (Oct 09) produced in London by a commercial property agent specialising in restaurants and cafes. The magazine is designed to be something you read over coffee in one of the many cafes and restaurants around London and the content provokes thought and curiosity. It has poetry, jokes, illustrations and very short articles on interesting people and places. It is produced by a wonderful lady called Giny Spivak. In a world which is increasingly electronic, it is so good to find something in print which you want to hold because it is beautiful, and you want to read from cover to cover.

I came across the first edition and I had to hunt high and low to find this person who had conceived such a lovely magazine. Eventually I found her and told her how much I had enjoyed it. She asked me what I did and I told her. She had never heard of mediation before and this was how I described it.

Mediation is commonly associated with the legal process, yet it is a “human” process designed to resolve conflict which has become a dispute.

Far from negative, conflict is part of human nature, and it is the fuel for creativity and innovation. The feelings we have about a dispute come from personal interpretation, and a very particular way of perceiving “the experience”: our own way.

If we could accept that everyone’s beliefs and actions are in fact reasonable to them, then we are half way there. If we can go one step further and take the risk in allowing others to tell how and why they feel that way, then we might just learn something that will point us to another view. Just by listening.

It is human nature to state our position. We want our side of the story to be heard in order to feel validated. Often, that is all we need. Until something changes, there can be no resolution.

Change brings conflict and change is what resolves it. Change is inevitable and most of the time it will come about unannounced, unexpectedly. Other times, we can sense its approach, smoke signaling the end of a commitment, the arrival of an overdue finale.

We tend to ignore the signs in the hope that we are mistaken. Eventually, our disappointment overshadows the memories we had of all the good feelings we felt when we first engaged and committed to a contract or relationship. They are forgotten and replaced by new, less comfortable feelings of anger, fear and mistrust. If those feelings remain unacknowledged, eventually all becomes an unremitting cycle of complexity and confusion which we try to rationalise and in doing so we make it fit our feelings. It is simple: there is no conflict without emotion and emotions are complex.

One way to cease further pain and confusion is to hand the decision to a judge. That will be an imposed decision. In mediation, however, negotiation includes both parties telling their stories. Each party having the opportunity to be heard, to express their valid and personal view. By narrating their experience, creativity flows and anger, fear and mistrust are replaced with acceptance and willingness towards finding an agreement. Both parties need help to complete the process. All need to commit to the process.  As a mediator my job is to guide people towards agreement. The outcome is that both parties can win and sometimes the greatest prize is dignity.

I am the third party. The conduit for understanding that brings acceptance and ignites the reason to try and agree.

At its best mediation is an opportunity to be entirely human, productive and efficient through innate creativity. After all, creativity is the best of human nature

The new arrangements for disciplinary and grievance procedures have raised alarm bells for me not least as a result of the resurgence in the promotion of training teams of in-house mediators. Please don’t do it!
Why on earth not? I hear you cry. Here’s why…

1. You will need a variety of people to make up a team that might meet the needs of any and all disputes arising and that is a real challenge to build. It is a bigger challenge to maintain. When people leave the team, either because they leave the company or through promotion, it is unlikely they will be replaced immediately with another trained in-house mediator. Re-training has all kinds of hurdles not least getting enough people to make it worthwhile and allocating the funding. Soon, the resource becomes fragmented and the employees and managers lose confidence in the ability of the in-house team to deal promptly with issues arising. = disappointment
2. There are specific skills which require practice and attributes which require careful identification. A good deal of what is required to be an effective mediator can be trained but certainly not all. The classic choice for an in-house mediator is someone who already displays a “harmony seeking” style or disposition. They may be expected to deal with matters so that they do not become fully fledged disputes and that makes for pressure to stifle and curtail discussion about underlying causes. What you really need is someone who is very skilled in orchestrating frank and open dialogue and is confident enough to deal with the conflict that might engender. Someone who has the skills to make sure that can happen in a positive environment and who can guide the parties through it and out the other side. Without these skills and attributes, mediation can be seen as yet another “sticking plaster process”. = distrust of the process
3. It is rare for in-house mediators to have enough and regular practice or experienced support to maintain a level of skill to make them effective. If they fail, then that can reflect upon their overall role in the organisation. = resentment
4. It is rare for organisations to make the role of mediator the primary role for the individual. It is may be seen as a reward for past performance, an alternative to current (unsuccessful) performance or an opportunity for personal development. Therefore, there is an in-built conflict as mediation will always be secondary to their main job. That is neither helpful for them or for the people for whom they are acting as mediator. The possible measures for successful performance are incredibly difficult to establish. Reconciling those with the performance measures for the “day job” is even more complex. = risk
5. In-house mediators can be viewed as partial, with a conflict of interests and a vested interest in the outcome. This breaks the three core principals of why mediation works. The issue of confidentiality is also in question – at least in the minds of the parties. They know the culture of the orgnaisation and if they don’t believe in the autonomy of the in-house mediator then they will neither trust the process nor trust the mediator. All these are fundamental to the success of mediation. = long term distrust of a valuable business tool.

So what is the alternative?

• push the responsibility for dispute resolution to the top of the organisation. It works best when it is on the board room table;
• invest in training for senior managers on recognising the early signs of discontent and reward them for “grasping the nettle”;
• develop performance measures around conversation, consultation and change. For example, how many opportunities for “surgeries” has a manager created? How many meetings have been held where the agenda was designed by the workforce and not the manager?



“There is a real danger that people [employers] keep their heads down. There is a danger we can lock ourselves away in darkened rooms – when employees need us more than ever walking the floors.” Liane Hornsey, people organisations director at Google

• How many changes have been made to procedures and processes to remedy deficiencies and embed success?
• For every KPI on productivity, performance and output, can you agree a matching KPI for the manager or team leader on how many issues they have resolved which were presented by their team as being barriers to success? How about reporting on the pairs of KPI’s? This demonstrates shared responsibility.

On the occasion that a problem arises which is too sensitive or too complex to deal with internally then seek out an independent mediator who can bring fresh eyes, new perspective, impartiality and experience to the issues and who will also gain the respect and trust of those involved. If the matter is serious and complex enough to be still an issue then you will need experience and that will be a combination of

• mediation experience
• commercial experience
• sector experience

Why do it this way?

Because it is one of the most cost effective ways of resolving disputes and looking after your internal reputation at the same time. At the moment, internal reputation should be high up on the agenda of every company and organisation especially if redundancy is in the air.

An interesting post in The Lawyer today…

Jackson LJ’s review of litigation costs must be more far-reaching, insists profession | Features | The Lawyer.

I would like to point you to a recent article published on the Harvard Business School Working Knowledge site on a book by by Gerald and Lindsay Zaltman about the value of deep thinkers in organisations titled “Marketing Metaphoria: What Deep Metaphors Reveal About the Minds of Consumers“. It chimes well with the recent blog post I wrote on curiosity.

According to the Zaltmans, “while nearly all research techniques commonly used today probe humans only at their conscious level, the subconscious (offering deep insights) really determines behavior, and that explains why humans don’t behave as they say they will, whether in buying or other behaviors.”

What I particularly like about the article (apart from the fact that it supports some “deep thinking” theory and practice that I have been sharing for a long time) are the following observations which seem to me to be very much what goes on for parties and their advisers during mediations.

1. reluctance to take risk, especially when short-term performance is at stake,
2. the fear of disruption resulting from “thinking differently and deeply,”
3. the potential psychological cost of changing one’s mind resulting from deep thinking, and
4. the lack of information providing deep insights on which to base deep thinking.”

These points as very relevant to the parties in mediation and how mediation can really contribute to the development of their business and identify opportunities. If mediators don’t explore the subconscious issues with the parties it means, I think, that we are almost certainly ’leaving value on the table’ and it is value that the parties could have created from their own knowledge and could have improved their experience of mediation. In the article the Zaltmans propose that there are just “seven deep metaphors —

• balance (equilibrium),
• transformation (changing states or status),
• journey (as in life),
• container (keeping things in and keeping things out),
• connection (feelings of belonging or exclusion),
• resource (providing survival), and
• control.”

and that these metaphors…“describe 70 percent of our inner feelings. The objective is to find deep metaphors that individuals share in common (a true market segment or a basis for resolving a confIict) rather than differences. If we would just take the time to explore them we would be able to realize such things as more substantial, farsighted, successful new product introductions (such as the hybrid auto ten years ago at Toyota); more successful conflict resolution; and more significant innovation…”

The list of metaphors may provide other mediators with a very useful checklist. I have added some further notes for consideration.

• balance – what are the parties beliefs about justice, fairness and reciprocity? This will be very relevant to the negotiation about the numbers later on and if no money is involved it will be even more relevant to changing perceptions about satisfaction and trust.

• transformation – where is the information that might help the parties transform their view of the dispute? What assumptions are being made? How influential do the parties feel?

• journey – how do the past, present and future interrelate for the parties? This has relevance for maintaining optimism and hope that a settlement can be reached. It is important in relation to how much time you spend on the circumstances that prompted the dispute in the first place. It also has very real importance in cross-cultural disputes where different cultures have different time orientations.

• container – what are the boundaries experienced by the parties? Are feelings of inclusion and/or inclusion important and what do they believe is possible (in) and what is not (out)? This might simply relate to what they have been told are matters that can be included in any litigation.

• connection – What are the feelings around relationships, self-esteem, pride, capability etc? And do the parties really understand their own needs?

• resource – what are the beliefs about available resources – their own and those available to the other side? This might include the ability of the other party to pay. It may be what happens if they don’t get the amount that they are looking or/have to pay the amount the other side is looking for. Resource is also very relevant to deciding what the zone of possible agreement might be because that will define the negotiation strategy and therefore the outcome.

• control – what are the feelings around being in charge, decision making, vulnerabilities and fears?

My apologies to the Zaltmans if I have reframed their categories to something that is beyond their intentions! I hope they might put it down to “deep thinking”!

More on how this played out in a recent mediation is another post.
here is the link for the book on Amazon.com