Negotiating Influence: How to Help Your Opponents Change Their Minds
I have alot more to say about this but for the moment am simply linking you to an article at Cognitive daily demonstrating the known fact that you are far more likely to persuade another if you are making eye contact with him.
And still opposing parties resist sitting in the same room with one another when attempting to settle litigation!
There is a considerable body of research showing that eye contact is a key component of social interaction. Not only are people more aroused when they are looked at directly, but if you consistently look at the person you speak to, you will have much more social influence over that person than you would if you averted your gaze.
For full article, click here.
Victoria,
Great insights. Like you, it amazes me how often people refuse to sit together to resolve a confict.
I read this post today, and I saw a connection between this and something I read at Mediation Channel. If you're interested, take a look at my post that connects the two thoughts: http://principledriven.com/blog/2008/08/08/an-attitude-of-curiosity-continued/
I really enjoy the links and insights you provide. Thanks.
Guy Harris
My experience with face to face meetings during mediation has not been very positive. The last time I did this, the parties actually hardened their positions and it took considerably longer to develop a dialogue and get the settlement discussions moving. We eventually settled, but it was tough. The face-to-face meeting are a much better way to conduct negotiations BEFORE there is a dispute. Afterward it is tough to get the emotion out of the discussion. This is a very good discussion.
Was it a coached joint session? Did the mediator prepare the parties and set the agenda and tone for the joint session before bringing parties and counsel together? Did the mediator take the time and trouble to help the parties sort out why the joint session failed right then and there in the joint session
Victoria: First I want to tell you that I love your blog. You have great articles and comments.
With respect to my joint session mediation, this was a number of years ago and it is difficult to remember all of the specifics, but I would have to say “No,” the mediator did not handle it well.
The mediator decided at the last minute that it would be nice to see if we could all meet and agree in a joint session.
In his defense, he had the advantage of reviewing the positions of both parties in their submittals. There was no warning that the mediator was going to try to help the parties come to an agreement in a joint session.
What I remember most was my client getting so incensed by the positions of the other party in the joint session. Unfortunately my client hardened his position – not helpful in mediation – and apparently the other party did the same. I think the theory about eye-to-eye meeting and negotiations is absolutely correct.
The problem is that parties bring so much emotion into a settlement discussion that I think they need to stay separate from the people creating the emotion before they can calmly assess the best course of action.
Gavin Craig