Bea V. Larsen . . . .Commentaries

Bea V. Larsen is a Senior Mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in
Cincinnati, Ohio 
Bea V. Larsen

For a number of years Bea V. Larsen, senior mediator at the Center for Resolution of Disputes in Cincinnati, Ohio [www.cfrdmediation.com], presented weekly commentaries on WVXU radio, both on her professional work as a mediator and on more personal or general experiences. These broadcasts reached thousands of listeners in a number of midwestern states and elicited many comments. This new series of online commentaries will continue that tradition, now broadcast to the world via the internet. Comments, which can be posted directly to this blog, are warmly encouraged. More personal background information can be read in the "Introductions" category below.
 

Abandon Fairness

Print the article

This entry was posted on 4/9/2006 1:42 PM and is filed under Relationship Dynamics.

    While I'm always pleased to hear my mediation clients articulate the goal of a fair outcome, I rarely let the statement go by without a note of caution.Two individuals have agreed to share a process. While no doubt some of their values converge, there are likely many values they do not share. I tell them that in the mediation process, we will not strive to change that.

    My expectation is that their perceptions of past events will also differ. While their perceptions may well factor into the decisions they are willing to make and so are of importance, coming to some meeting of the minds about what actually happened in the past, some empirical truth being proven, is neither likely to happen nor of importance to their reaching workable solutions for the problems at hand.

    I urge the adoption of a flea market mentality. Finding an item you wish to purchase, you ask the dealer "how much?" And when the response is "twenty dollars", you don't say "but that's not fair". You might offer to pay ten dollars and later settle for fifteen, but the deal is not struck by arguing the fairness of the price, but by reaching an acceptable one.

    So too do I urge my mediating parties. Do not try to convince someone whose values or perceptions may differ from your own to agree with your sense of fairness. Seek instead an outcome that is acceptable to you, that meets your interests and that sufficiently meets the interests of your bargaining partner, so a deal can be struck.

    Understanding those interests, your own and those of your counterpart, both short term and long term, becomes the key to success. And to get there, asking questions in a non-blaming, non-accusatory way can elicit the information that will bring valuable bargaining chips to the table.

    Fairness must exist in the process, each side fully heard and fully informed, but as a criterion for evaluating the outcome, it is an ever-elusive goal, best forgotten.

 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 4/10/2006 9:54 AM Robert Rack wrote:
      Good point! I've been noting the brain research and my own experience showing how subjective and complexly influenced our reactions are to almost everything. If, as the research shows, Democrats and Republicans will react postively or negatively to an identical message depending on whether the speaker is recognized as one of "them" or "us," the lesson should be clear that we do not, and perhaps cannot, see and feel about the same things the same way. It looks like there is no such thing as objecive "fairness." Your advice to disputants not to hinge honest, practical solutions to a requirement that the other side agree to our definition of what's fair sounds right to me. I just wish it was easier to give up that emotional need for vindication--to be acknowledged as right.
      Reply to this
      1. 4/26/2006 4:30 PM Christine Rack wrote:
        I came to somewhat different conclusions about fairness analyzing the MetoCourt mediation data. A whole group of people (more often Anglo and higher status) weren't thinking about fairness--they reported motivations based on getting the best deal they could regardless of fairness to the other party. By Rawl's definition, fair is when you'd call it fair if you were the other person. It seems mediation might serve justice claims better if the disputant was encouraged to define 'fair' as 'fair' to both/all. Though not a simple quest, I do not think this is an impossible framing.
        Reply to this
        1. 5/2/2006 8:16 PM Bea Larsen wrote:
          Chris: In my work as a mediator, although I pointedly remark to the parties at the outset that most likely they will not agree on what a fair outcome would be, I am personally committed to both parties being fully informed and given every opportunity to explore fairness standards with chosen experts before they make firm decisions. On some, although rare, occasions, I have refused to continue a mediation to conclusion if one party is contemplating a decision clearly against their best interest and is unwilllng to seek approprisate legal advice. I think a mediator has that obligation.

          Thanks, Chris for your thoughtful comment.

          Reply to this
    • 4/11/2006 1:02 PM Jack Sherman Jr. wrote:
      I like the flea market mentality idea. We all see issues and answers differently, but to try to impose our perceptions on others is simply counterproductive. Strike that bargain.

      I look forward to future commentaries.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Name

     Email (will not be published)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://BEALARSEN.COM. All rights reserved.