Ethics Problems in Corporate America

by Regina Anaejionu, Demand Media

Though all unethical acts aren't illegal, it is important to identify your company's risk areas.

Related Articles

• How to Identify Examples of Corporate Ethics & Where They Might Have Failed or Succeeded
• Ethics Company Training
• Ethics, Diversity & Corporate Culture
• Code of Ethics for Administrators
• How Does Workplace Ethics Contribute to Your Success?
• Effects of a Lack of Ethics on a Business Environment

Of the over 3,000 workers polled in the "2009 National Business Ethics Survey," or NBES, by the Ethics Resource Center, 49 percent observed ethical misconduct in their workplaces. These issues ranged from company resource abuse to bribes and illegal political contributions. In the two years since the 2007 NBES, however, workplace ethics have improved. The Ethics Resource Center says that ethical misconduct declines when the economy struggles and rises when there is not as much economic pressure. This is reflected in the 2000 NBES, after the dot-com burst and the 2003 NBES, after the Enron scandal and the downfall of Arthur Andersen, one of America's oldest accounting firms. Both reports showed decreases in ethical activity from the previous reports.

Employee Mistreatment

Ethics problems can come in the form of coworkers mistreating and harassing each other or managers and business owners mistreating their employees, even to the point of breaking the law. In the 2007 book "Diversity in Organizations," author Myrtle P. Bell talks about the common practices of sexual harassment and assault in the workplace along with the exploitation of immigrant workers in the form of low wages, abuse and excessive hours with no overtime. "Are You A Bully?," the June 1999 Newsletter of the California Department of Transportation, outlines common workplace bullying tactics, such as spreading rumors, shouting, insulting coworkers, discrediting others, age or ethnicity discrimination and taking credit for others' ideas.

Customer Mistreatment

Forms of unethical customer treatment include intentionally releasing shoddy products, lying to consumers and discriminating against clients by gender, familial status, nationality, age, sexual orientation and education level, according to the 2011 book "Business Ethics." Since a customer may not report mistreatment, it is important that all employees understand what unacceptable behavior is. Clearly defined ethics programs and highly ethical leaders or owners can establish an environment in which ethics violations against coworkers and customers are seen as wrong and are reprimanded.

Unethical Employee Behavior

Employees polled in the "2009 National Business Ethics Survey" said they observed other employees abusing company resources, falsifying their time sheets, abusing substances, breaching customer privacy, using the Internet and email accounts for personal matters, turning in false expenses and stealing. Whereas 49 percent of employees reported seeing ethical misconduct in 2009, the numbers were down from 56 percent who reported misconduct just two years earlier in 2007. Ethical misconduct numbers dropped between one and four percent each in most of the aforementioned areas, due in part to clearer guidelines, stricter ethics programs at work and anonymous hotlines to report unethical behavior.

Corporate Intelligence Issues

The authors of "Business Ethics" have also identified practices in which businesses act unethically against each other or employees of one company steal and sell corporate intelligence, or C.I., to a rival company. These acts include "dumpster diving" for confidential information that a company may have thrown away, hacking into a computer system for information and tricking someone into revealing valuable information. Advancements in technology make it simpler to commit C.I. crimes, since they can be committed remotely. Even though the overall ethical misconduct numbers are declining, more C.I. issues have arisen. Whereas in 2000, most workers polled for the NBES cited the main issues as abusive behavior, lying and discrimination, in 2009, more people were reporting misuse of confidential information and insider trading.

Accounting Practices

Falsifying company expenses or sales, altering financial documents to benefit the company and releasing misleading statements to employees or investors about a company's financial stability are all unethical accounting acts. Due to the increase in accounting fraud and unethical financial practices, legislation like the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires top managers to certify their companies' financial statements and makes chief executive officers and chief financial officers personally accountable for these statements. In 2004, the United States Sentencing Commission changed its guidelines to make sentencing more strict for organizations that commit federal crimes and to outline components of the most effective ethics programs for organizations. Many companies use these Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Organizations as a framework for their ethical compliance initiatives.

Mexico's Drug Trade on the Rise

Mexico's drug trade is on the rise and so is the violence. What tools can be used to help deter violence from drug trade? Do you think negotiations are even worth considering?

Genesis Women's Outreach

On July 28th we will be bowling for the cause of domestic violence and I am reaching out to family, fans and friends for donations.

The proceeds go to the organization we support: Genesis Women's Outreach.  Please click on the link to donate: https://genesis.ejoinme.org/17707

Is Negotiation a Strategy to A Diplomatic Iran?

International conflict is on the rise. Iran's lack of need to engage in negotiations or diplomacy has become increasingly difficult for the rest of the world to work with them. Sanctions and embargoes therefore, have been placed against Iran. Do you think that negotiation is an alternative method to diplomacy with  Iran?

Post your thoughts.

Teen Bullying

Teen bullying is on the rise. Check out this article on CNN. The article provides a real life example of how teens are now bullying the elderly. Mediation is a tactic that we can use to deter teen bullying. Mediation along with psycho therapy can be used to prevent teens from acting as bullies. Teens who are bullies are amongst the most insecure people in their age group. Bullying is used as a defensive mechanism to ensure that they do not get hurt emotionally, mentally, and psychically.We cannot put bullies behind bars, that is not the solution. We must get them tested psychologically to determine what hidden issues (i.e.battles) they are facing in their life currently. If we can combat these hidden issues, I think we can slowly prevent future bullying.

Middle schoolers bully bus monitor, 68, with stream of profanity, jeers

By Faith Karimi, CNN

updated 7:17 AM EDT, Thu June 21, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• "Oh my God, you're so fat," one student says
• "I ... tried to shut them out," Klein tells a CNN affiliate
• One student says Klein's family killed themselves because "they didn't want to be near you."
• Her oldest son took his own life 10 years ago

(CNN) -- A profanity-laced video of middle school students in upstate New York verbally abusing a bus monitor is sparking an outpouring of support as strangers worldwide rally to her side.

In the video, the students taunt Karen Klein, 68, with a stream of profanity, insults, jeers and physical ridicule.

Some boys demand to know her address, saying they want to come to her house to perform sexual acts and steal from her.

The bullying continues unabated for about 10 minutes in the video, reducing Klein to tears as a giggling student jabs her arm with a book in one instance.

"Oh my God, you're so fat," one says.

Klein, a bus monitor for the Greece Central School District, said she tried her best to disregard the harassment. The students involved attend Greece Athena middle school.

Kids develop app to fight bullying

Criminalizing cyber bullying

Valderrama's anti-bullying campaign

"I tried to ignore it ... I didn't hear some stuff and tried to shut them out," Klein told CNN affiliate WHAM.

She said one comment from a boy aboard the bus was especially painful. He tells her that she does not have family because "they all killed themselves because they didn't want to be near you."

Klein's oldest son took his own life 10 years ago, according to the affiliate.

CNN attempts to reach all parties involved Wednesday were unsuccessful.

The video prompted an outpouring of support and a fundraiser by an international crowd funding site that had gathered more than $100,000 by early Thursday.

"Let's give Karen a vacation of a lifetime. Let's show her the power of the internets and how kind and generous people can be," the fundraiser's organizer said on the website. The organizer did not respond to CNN requests for comment on the website.

The school district said its bullying team and the local police are conducting an investigation.

"We have discovered other similar videos on YouTube and are working to identify all of the students involved," the school district said in a statement.

It did not elaborate on whether the additional videos are related to Klein's case.

"While we cannot comment on specific student discipline, we can say that students found to be involved will face strong disciplinary action," the school district said.

The students involved are minors, according to the school district. CNN does not name minors involved in alleged crimes unless they are charged as adults.

Officials involved in the investigation will hold a news conference Thursday.

Why none succeeded to reform Arab Bureaucracies

by:

middleeasttribune.wordpress.com

During the first decade of this century, governments and organizations alike were occupied by several analysis processes to reevaluate their achievements and shortcomings, cope with the mainstream trends of people, and, of course, make plans for the future.
 Developed countries and advanced organizations have skillfully utilized most of those novel technological advancements to promote their organizational structures, administrative regulations and bureaucracies to keep up with the modern impulse of their citizens. Towards that, besides upgrading and simplifying their standard procedures, governments equipped their bureaus and administration offices with the latest high-tech mobile capabilities, efficient networking devices and computerized equipments to free their bureaucratic systems from sluggishness, procrastination and corruption seeking to attain more efficiency and better functionality of their public services.
In the Middle East region, as in most developing countries, people, by and large, consider bureaucracy as a mode of tiring procedures and defective conduct. For them, it points to an underhanded corrupted performance, which is based on lazy and inflexible applications of outdated administrative procedures.
In the Arab world, in particular, the core structures and procedures of Arab’s administrative and bureaucratic systems were been originally designed and patterned by the prolonged Ottoman rule, and were reshaped after the two world wars by the victorious French or British colonial power. In most cases, they are rigid structures that contain lots of ambiguity and impracticality, which opened the way for bias, favoritism, nepotism and corruption. Though several serious attempts have been made to reform Arabs’ bureaucracies, yet almost all were unsuccessful to deliver the required change and development.
This, however, implied on Arabs to wonder why most governments­­—not to say all—weren’t able to reform and modernize their bureaucratic system! Most people blame their political and governing system for such frustrating setback. Other critics accuse their public servants of being incompetent and corrupt. So, why none succeeded to really modernize Arab bureaucracies?
Actually, there are several diverse causes and reasons for that failure. While there are many reasons related to each single Arab country, they still share some common ground for such shortcomings. The first and foremost shared reason is that only few analysts and public administrators reviewed the case from a societal and organizational culture perspective. Seeing most strategists and experts underrated the effects of behavioral and social culture on the performance of public service employees. The second reason is related to the adoption of foreign theories and application of clichéd management systems disregarding the local wants and traditional track of each Arab society.
In the 16th century, Michel de Montaigne, a French humanist and philosopher wrote: “Vérité en deçà des Pyrénées, erreur au delà”, which means, “there are truths on this side of the Pyrenees, which are falsehood on the other”. In other words, what is good and right to some, could be corrupt and wrong to the other.
It is a proven fact that packaged management theories are not the correct solutions to reform government systems, bureaucracies or organizations. Hypothetically, applying the British bureaucratic system in France or USA would lead to catastrophic results though all are highly developed countries. Imposing electronic procedures and online-based applications on a country that have high levels of computer illiteracy would counteract the intended reform and create chaos instead, and so on.
This actuality, however, is not to imply that old-fashioned ideas and concepts should be upheld unrevised. That is to say that an adaptation and adjustment process of a specific structure with national culture is the only way to achieve good  results, since absolute reality sometimes varies according to the nature of social culture, and levels of general knowledge and education of the public.
After the World War II and the end of the decolonization process, the United Nations (UN) along with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank (WB) jointly designed several development programs to combat poverty and create development, seeing four-fifths of the world’s population at that time was living in poor countries. In essence, most of these development programs were constructed on Western theories and organizational culture leaving little or no room at all for those impoverished countries to interject their national culture into these international development programs. Unfortunately, tens of billions of dollars were spent to develop those poor countries, yet only minimal results were been accomplished so far.
It is known that national culture directs individuals and communities to embrace certain cultural principles, like honesty, concordance and conformity, for the benefit of the large society. Societal culture influences work practices and has profound impact on the performance and productivity of public and private organizations. To that end, development strategists and experts have to take into consideration that the values, performance and outcomes of any reform or development process of a particular bureaucracy would vary according to each national culture.
To all intents and purposes, the fact remains that any government that seeks to ease up and fine-tune everyday life of its citizens has to develop a competent bureaucracy that can collectively deliver effortless and efficient public services. To do that it needs a good functional body of personnel who perform properly and positively, and have harmonious social dynamics with their surrounding national environment first of all.

An Analysis of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the Corporate Governance Architecture of Ghana

by Senyo M. Adjabeng June 2012

Introduction
Corporate Governance has never been this vital in Ghana’s history regarding re- democratization processes especially in the fourth republic.  The private sector has been touted as the engine of growth by the past New Patriotic Party (NPP) Government led by Ex-President John Agyekum Kuffour.  The current administration of President Mills also considers the private sector as the foundation for accelerated growth and development – the engine of growth.  This extraordinary focus on the private sector in recent times means a heightened interest in how organizations are run at profit and how organizational leadership deal with disputes when they occur between management and employees or between the organization and its suppliers, customers and other external bodies.
Why do these disputes occur?  Why do the disputes prove so fatal to organizational sustainability? Could they have been avoided?  What is Ghana’s corporate governance architecture in respect of disputes resolution mechanisms?  These questions are essential for finding out how corporate governance and commercial disputes in boardroom wrangling and disagreements can be managed better.
Corporate governance is regulated in Ghana by the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) as the primary legislation for handling corporate governance issues.  The principal government organization responsible for corporate governance is the Registrar of Companies at the Registrar Generals Department in Accra.
Disputes Resolution Mechanisms under the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) of Ghana
Sections 324 to 327 (only 4 sections) deal with legal proceedings which provisions reveal a glimpse of the dispute resolution mechanism the Company’s Code of Ghana adopts.  Section 324 of the Code suggests that legal proceedings are proceedings in a Court of competent jurisdiction.  The “Court” as referred to in the Code is defined as “the High Court”.    Indeed, throughout the Code, the High Court has been used severally as the reference point for seeking redress to any grievance or disagreement under the code. 
The Courts trial process also known as litigation is the most common disputes resolution process in Ghana.  “The traditional legal response to disputes between parties has been for lawyers to initiate the litigation process by filing a complaint or motion” in court (Nolan-Haley, 2008).  Handed down by the British Colonial Masters, litigation in Ghana is a highly structured and formalized disputes resolution process.  The very formal and structured characteristic of litigation as a disputes resolution process is what also makes it problematic. 
Lawsuits which constitute the litigation process can be long, winding and cumbersome.  It takes an average of two years for a civil matter to be concluded in a typical High Court in Ghana.  The litigation process is confrontational or adversarial in nature and destroys relationships.  It lacks privacy and confidentiality as court trial processes are generally held in open court as a public hearing except in specific cases involving children and spouses in custody or divorce matters where the matter may be held in the Judge’s chambers.  The process is also expensive.  Aside court fees, advocates or lawyers charge huge sums as representation fees and so on.  The process is long and winding as lawyers exaggerate issues at stake and prolong the process through technical and procedural theatrics which is characteristic of the litigation processes.  It is obvious that the above limitations of litigation makes it quite inappropriate for use in commercial disputes or disputes related to corporate governance under the companies code of Ghana because when businesses fight, they lose money as clients and customers quickly move to competitor organizations to do business.  Alternative mechanisms lie with the Alternative Disputes Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) and not the outdated Companies Code of 1963 (Act 179).
Disputes Resolution Options under the ADR Act, 2010 (Act 798) of Ghana
The Alternative Disputes Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) of Ghana was passed in May 2010 to replace the Arbitration Act, 1961 (Act 38) which had become outdated and lagged behind contemporary Arbitration and other ADR practices.  The ADR Act has five parts, 138 sections, and five schedules.  Part 1 constitutes Arbitration, Part 2 Mediation, Part 3 Customary Arbitration, Part 4 the Alternative Disputes Resolution Centre and Part 5 Financial, administrative and Miscellaneous Provisions.  For the purpose of this paper, we shall focus on the first three parts of the ADR Act which is Arbitration, Mediation and Customary Arbitration.  Customary Arbitration may be important in Corporate Governance because of the prevalent land acquisition and land disputes problems in Ghana.  Because most lands in Ghana are stool lands and owned by traditional families, companies often have to deal with these traditional families in the acquisition of land and property or in dispute situations.  Under these circumstances, the viable alternative may be the adoption of the Customary Arbitration alternative to litigation for an amicable settlement of the matter.
Mediation as an ADR Process for Resolving Corporate Governance Disputes
Mediation is another common ADR process.  Mediation is generally defined as a disputes resolution process where parties in dispute voluntarily invite a neutral third party called a mediator to assist them in resolving their dispute.  The Alternative Disputes Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) of Ghana defines mediation as “a nonbinding process in which the parties discuss their dispute with an impartial person who assists them to reach a resolution.”  Note that the ADR Act describes mediation as a non binding process.  However, section 81 (3) of the ADR Act states that “where the parties sign the settlement agreement, the parties shall be deemed to have agreed that settlement shall be binding on the parties and persons claiming under them respectively.”  The parties must agree from the outset for the settlement agreement to be binding on them.  The Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651) of Ghana confirms this by stating that “where the parties agree to mediate and at the end of mediation proceedings there is settlement of the dispute, the agreement between the parties as regards the terms of settlement shall be recorded in writing and signed by the mediator and the parties to the dispute….the settlement agreement….shall be binding on all the parties unless the agreement states otherwise”. 
This shows that in mediation the parties are truly in control of the process because they regulate or determine the outcome.  In Ghana, the effect of a binding settlement agreement is that it “has the same effect as if it is an arbitral award”.  Indeed, the ADR Law of Ghana encourages any “party to any agreement may with the consent of the other party submit any dispute arising out of that agreement to mediation by an institution or a person agreed on by the parties”.  Hence in corporate governance, all agreements, policies and procedures may incorporate distinct mediation clauses that ensure that parties have a prior agreement to mandatorily resolve disputes by mediation when they occur.
In a presentation to the Global Corporate Governance forum in Paris in 2007, His Lordship Justice Geoffrey W.M. Kiryabwire of Uganda delivered a paper on Mediation of Corporate Governance issues: A case Study from Uganda.  In this presentation, he states that “the general tendency in Uganda over the years was to litigate disputes with a view to get a legally binding decision”.  Mediation was introduced into the justice system in Uganda riding on the traditional belief that ADR was not a new phenomenon in the Ugandan Culture.  Through legal reforms in law and practice mediation was introduced into the justice system of Uganda through the commercial courts system.
The case in Ghana is not very different.  The Judicial Service of Ghana runs a nationwide ADR programme as a compliment to traditional litigation processes through its ADR Secretariat headed by a director who is a Court of Appeal Judge.  The scope of the National ADR Programme of the Judicial Service of Ghana goes beyond the Commercial Court.  It stretches from the District Courts, the Circuit Courts to the High Courts.  An appellate ADR system was largely discussed among the Senior Management of the Judicial Service sometime ago with the view to implement processes that make mediation possible in the Courts of Appeal.  Indeed, the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) states thus:
“Section 72—Courts to Promote Reconciliation in Civil Cases.
(1) Any court with civil jurisdiction and its officers shall promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate the settlement of disputes in an amicable manner between and among persons over whom the court has jurisdiction.
(2) When a civil suit or proceeding is pending, any court with jurisdiction in that suit may promote reconciliation among the parties, and encourage and facilitate the amicable settlement of the suit or proceeding.
Section 73—Reconciliation in Criminal Cases.
Any Court, with criminal jurisdiction may promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate a settlement in an amicable manner of any offence not amounting to felony and not aggravated in degree, on payment cases of compensation or on other terms approved by the court before which the case is tried, and may during the pendency of the negotiations for a settlement stay the proceeding for a reasonable time and in the event of a settlement being effected shall dismiss the case and discharge the accused person” (The Courts Act, 1993, [Act 459]).
Further, Order 58 of the Civil Procedure Rules of the High Court of Ghana, CI 47, mandate that all cases filed with the specialized commercial court goes through a mandatory pre-trial conference before trial.
Arbitration as a mechanism for resolving Corporate Governance Disputes
The Arbitration process is just like a private court process in Ghana.  It is conducted by an arbitrator who makes a binding determination just like a judge.  The process is only voluntary to the extent where the parties agree to adopt the process.  Otherwise, arbitration in Ghana is a final and binding process which outcome can only be appealed against on questions of law at the Court of Appeal.  Arbitration is known to be faster in many instances than litigation and its outcome is as enforceable as any judgement of the court.
The ADR Act, 2010 (Act 798) of Ghana defines Arbitration as “the voluntary submission of a dispute to one or more impartial persons for a final and binding determination.”  In arbitration under the current laws of Ghana, parties in dispute or to a written agreement may provide that a dispute arising under the agreement shall be resolved by arbitration.  Such agreement is often in the form of an arbitration clause incorporated in any agreement signed by the parties.  There is an opportunity available to organizations in their corporate governance processes to incorporate arbitration agreements into procedures, policies, regulations and other processes to provide for concrete and conclusive resolution of disputes that arise under the corporate governance stakeholders of the organization.
Arbitration has voluntary and compulsory dimensions.  Arbitration is generally voluntary.  However, for statutory processes such as Public Sector and Labour Arbitration processes, arbitration may be mandatory in accordance with specific statutes of the state.  Where a party is not satisfied with the voluntary arbitration award, an appeal on questions of law only may be filed with the Court of Appeal or seek to set aside the award at the High Court on grounds of bias, conflict of interest or arbitrator(s) action outside of mandated or where the Court finds that the award was induced by fraud or corruption.  These processes and procedures in Arbitration ensure that there is a certainty and logical conclusion to conflict especially those that arise as a result of commercial or corporate governance interrelationships. 
This article reveals that the Companies Code, 1963 (Act 179) of Ghana adopts the courts trial process of litigation as the primary disputes resolution mechanism which has very serious limitations for preventing and managing corporate governance conflicts more efficiently.  ADR processes of Negotiation, Mediation and Arbitration as prescribed by the ADR Act, 2010 (Act 798) have been explored and proven as more contemporary and useful mechanisms acceptable worldwide for better outcomes in commercial and corporate governance related disputes.
In conclusion, good corporate governance is the bedrock of Ghana’s business and economic development.  Because corporate governance and commercial disputes will continuously be a necessary part of corporate governance processes, it is important for business leaders and board of directors in Ghana, to incorporate in their policies, regulations and procedures, more contemporary disputes resolution processes such as mediation and arbitration for the prevention or conclusive resolution of disputes that arise.  Clearly, litigation which is the most common and visible disputes resolution option has serious limitations in Ghana’s judicial system especially for disputants in continuous, ongoing and interdependent relationships.

International Mediation

International Mediation and Intractable Conflict

---

By Jacob Bercovitch

Intractable conflicts have been with us for quite some time now. As these conflicts pose a serious threat to international peace and security, we may look at them and ask two basic questions; (1) how and why do they start, and (2) how best to end them? Here, I am concerned with the second issue. Intractable conflicts provide many opportunities for conflict management. Numerous international actors, ranging from private individuals to international organizations have an interest in settling or helping to de-escalate intractable conflicts. The main argument I wish to advance is that of all these efforts, mediation offers the most promising approach to managing intractable conflicts. How can parties in an intractable conflict manage their difficulties? Parties in such conflicts usually think of violence or coercion as the most appropriate response. Other methods may be available to the parties (e.g. negotiation, recourse to the United Nations, or regional organizations, international adjudication, or asking for an international conference). However, given the nature of their conflict, and entrenched hostility, it would appear that the best approach would be that of mediation. What Mediation Is William Ury explains that the third side is a self-organizing social movement that works at all levels of the society from the grassroots to the elite. Outsiders can help get the movement started and can give it support, but basically the work is done from within. Mediation is a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties' own negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance of, or accept an offer of help from, an outsider (whether an individual, an organization, a group, or a state) to change their perceptions or behavior, and to do so without resorting to physical force or invoking the authority of law. The essential characteristics of mediation are highlighted below: Mediation is an extension of the parties' own efforts to manage their conflict. Where they fail, a third party (mediator) is called in. Thus, mediation involves the intervention of an outsider; an individual, a group or an organization into a conflict between two states or other actors. This intervention is non-coercive, non-violent, and ultimately non-binding. Mediators enter a conflict, whether internal or international, in order to affect it, change it, resolve it, modify or influence it in some way. Their overriding interest is to reduce violence and achieve a peaceful outcome. Mediators bring with them, consciously or otherwise, ideas, knowledge, resources, and prestige. These are used throughout the process to advance the cause of conflict resolution. Mediation is a voluntary form of conflict management. This means the adversaries in an intractable conflict choose whether to begin or continue mediation or not, and they retain their control over the outcome (if not always over the process) of their conflict, as well as their freedom to accept or reject any aspects of the process or the ultimate agreement. Mediation operates on an ad hoc basis only. Once completed, a mediator departs the arena of the conflict. All these features make mediation very attractive to parties in an intractable conflict. Mediation is practiced widely in international relations. It has many advantages that may appeal to parties in a bitter conflict. As described above, it is ad hoc in nature, non-coercive, and voluntary, which makes it less threatening than other possible conflict management options. It is non-evaluative and non-judgmental and it is particularly suited to the reality of international relations, where states and other actors guard their autonomy and independence quite jealously. It offers both parties the prospects of a better outcome without necessarily having any direct meetings with a sworn enemy. It is also a process that leaves the ultimate decision on any outcome to the parties themselves. These aspects of mediation make it a very attractive method for dealing with intractable conflicts Mediation Behavior What is it that mediators can actually do in intractable conflicts? Mediators have many resources, strategies and techniques available to them for trying to transform an intractable conflict into a tractable one. Specifically, mediators may use one of the following three strategies in the course of helping to deal with an intractable conflict. They may rely on (a) communication-facilitation strategies, (b) procedural strategies, or (c) directive strategies. (a) Communication-facilitation strategies describe mediator behavior at the low end of the intervention spectrum. Here a mediator typically adopts a fairly passive role, channeling information to the parties, facilitating cooperation, but exhibiting little control over the more formal process or substance of mediation. This is a very important role in the context of intractable conflicts, where parties in conflict lack direct channels of communication, have different conceptions of the central issues, and/or do not even have the opportunity to explore any options that might benefit both. In such situations, a mediator who can facilitate dialogue and communication, and just carry out information from one to the other, is a prerequisite for an effective process of peacemaking. Norway's intervention in bringing about the Oslo Accords in 1993 is a good example of what we mean by communication-facilitation strategies. (b) Procedural strategies enable a mediator to bring both parties together, in some neutral environment, where they (i.e., the mediator) exert some control over the conflict management process. Here a mediator may exercise control over timing, issues on the agenda, meeting place and arrangements, media publicity, the distribution of information, and the formality or flexibility of the meetings. A good example of the effective use of procedural strategies is President Carter's control over all aspects of the physical setting at Camp David in 1978. Procedural strategies give a mediator the opportunity to control aspects of interaction. This is very significant for parties in an intractable conflict who may not have had an opportunity to interact together in any other place save the battlefield. Procedural strategies help to minimize stress and disruption that arise when two or more conflictual parties who have little history of peacemaking get together to deal with their intractable conflict. (c) Directive strategies are the most powerful form of intervention. Here a mediator works hard to shape the content and nature of a final outcome. This is done by offering each party in conflict incentives, promises of support, or threats of diplomatic sanctions. When a mediator engages in such behavior, the parties are confronted with new resources or the prospect of losing resources. This may change the value they attach to their conflict and produce behavior that is more consonant with the requirements of conflict resolution. Directive strategies are crucial in any intractable conflict. They allow a mediator to break through a cycle of violence by changing the factors influencing the parties' decision making. By making financial or diplomatic support contingent on co-operation, people who are otherwise opposed to settlement might be persuaded to agree to one. President Carter, for instance, was able to break through both Israeli and Egyptian intransigence at Camp David by promising them both $2 billion each if they would sign a ceasefire agreement. Directive strategies take the form of promises of rewards or threats of withdrawals, if certain agreements are not made or actions are not taken. In either case they are significant in getting parties in an intractable conflict to change their values and behavior. Who are the Mediators? Given the complexity of intractable conflicts, the level of violence associated with them, and the dangers they pose, it is remarkable that so many political actors are prepared to intervene in these conflicts to transform them, settle them, or simply to ensure they do not become even more dangerous. It is useful to think of all potential mediators in intractable conflicts as falling into one of the following three categories. 1. Individuals. The traditional image of mediation, one nurtured by the media and popular accounts, is that of a single, usually high-ranking, individual, shuttling from one place to another, trying to search for understanding, restore communication, or help settle their conflict. This image is only partly accurate. In many instances, a mediator is an individual who does not have an official role, or who does not represent his/her country in any capacity. People such as Roger Fisher, Adam Curle, Herb Kelman, Leonard Doob, Jimmy Carter, and other members of the International Negotiation Network at the Carter Center intervene in conflicts in different parts of the world as respected persons with a strong commitment to conflict resolution. They do not do so as government officials. Individual mediators may hold different beliefs, values, and attitudes, and their mediation strategies may exhibit greater flexibility than official state mediators. What they all have in common is knowledge, experience, and commitment to peaceful conflict resolution. Such mediation is normally carried on without the glare of publicity, and permits the parties to engage in some meaningful dialogue should they choose to. As individuals, mediators do not possess significant resources; their behavior is of necessity limited only to communication and facilitation strategies. 2. States. Today there are 198 sovereign and legally equal states, but with different capabilities, regime-structures, and interests, which interact on the international arena. They are major actors in mediation, and often find themselves having to mediate an intractable conflict that may otherwise threaten their own interests. States, both large and small, frequently have reason or motive to mediate in conflicts, especially when these are in their region or where they may have some interests to promote or protect. Whether it is the United States, Switzerland, Norway, or Algeria, states find themselves very often at the forefront of mediation activities. When a state mediates an intractable conflict, it does so because it feels the conflict is a genuine threat to international peace and regional stability. When this happens, the state concerned, through its official representatives, may marshal all necessary resources behind a mediation effort and give it all the necessary clout. Unlike other mediators, states have considerable tangible resources, means of mobilizing them, and leaders with a mandate to use these resources. States that become engaged as mediators in an intractable conflict may find that they have to use all their resources in order to facilitate an agreement. 3. Institutions and Organizations. The complexity of intractable conflicts is such that states can no longer meet all the mediation requirements, nor facilitate a settlement when conflicts are long, drawn out, and intense. Other bodies and organizations are coming in to offer and deliver different mediation services. We have witnessed a phenomenal growth in the number of international, transnational and other non-state actors as mediators in the last decade or so. These functional actors, many of them falling under the multi-track umbrella, or track II diplomacy, have become an indispensable adjunct to traditional mediation by individuals and states. Two kinds of actors are important here. They are: (a) specialized non-governmental actors committed to conflict resolution (such as Amnesty International, International Alert, the Carter Center), and (b) a wide variety of religious (the Quakers, Islamic Conference Organization, the Community of Sante Egidio) and civic and humanitarian organizations (The International Committee of the Red Cross, Center for Humanitarian Mediation, Oxfam) whose main concern is to heal, to deal with some of the basic issues in conflict, and achieve reconciliation, and changed attitudes, not just settlement of a conflict. All these actors have some decided advantages in intractable conflicts; they operate informally and secretly, thus the parties need fear no loss of face. They offer services that other mediators cannot offer, and they may find it easier to gain access to the parties where formal diplomats may be viewed with suspicion if not downright hostility. Such actors can be less inhibited in their approach to a conflict, and can afford the luxury of appealing to the parties by promising them to work on all levels of their conflict and to achieve a long lasting solution to their problems. The United Nations--and other international organizations-- also provide mediation. UN Political Affairs Officer, Nita Yawanarajah, provides a description of UN mediation below: In the United Nations, the act of mediation describes the political skills utilized in efforts carried out by the United Nations Secretary-General or his representatives, through the exercise of the Secretary General's "Good Offices," without the use of force and in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter. The United Nations mediator engages in a process as a third party, when those in conflict either seek or accept the assistance of the United Nations with the aim to prevent, manage or resolve a conflict. Mediation skills, therefore, could be employed in all of the following contexts: prior to conflict through preventive diplomacy; during a conflict through peacemaking activities; after a conflict to promote implementation modalities and agreements during peacebuilding efforts to consolidate peace and lay the foundation for sustainable development. A United Nations mediation mandate, however, is more specifically defined. When the United Nations is called upon to mediate a resolution to a conflict, the parties accept what is called a mediation mandate. This means that they accept that the UN mediator is there to help and provide them them find solutions to resolve their conflict. A United Nations mediation mandate provides the authority for the Secretary-General or his envoys to: meet and listen to all parties to the conflict; consult all relevant parties for the resolution of the conflict; propose ideas and solutions to facilitate the resolution to the conflict While the final outcome has to be agreed to by the parties, being a mediator entails a much greater responsibility and involvement in the outcome of the conflict. As in other mediations, a United Nations mediated outcome is not binding, unless the Security Council takes actions to enforce the agreement. Final implementation of the mediated agreement rests upon the commitment of the parties. A United Nations mediation mandate is particularly useful to the parties as it gives them the opportunity to avail themselves of the experience and best practices that the United Nations ,as an organisation, has gained in the field of conflict resolution. --Nita Yawanarajah, Project Manager, UN Peacemaker Databank, Policy Planning Unit, Department of Political Affairs, United Nations Conditions for Successful Mediations in Intractable Conflicts Mediation is an effective and useful way of dealing with intractable conflicts. This is not to suggest that every intractable conflict can be mediated. Many conflicts are just too intense, the parties too entrenched and the behaviour just too violent for any mediator to achieve very much. Some intractable conflicts go on and on with little signs of abatement. They cease to become intractable only when there is a major systemic change (e.g. change of leaders, collapse of country, etc.). How then can we distinguish between conflicts that can be mediated and those that cannot? When should mediators enter an intractable conflict, and how can they increase their chances of success? 1. Mediators can engage in an intractable conflict only after a thorough and complete analysis of the conflict, issues at stake, context and dynamics, parties' grievances, etc. Intractable conflicts are complex and multi-layered. A mediation initiative is more likely to be successful if it is predicated on knowledge and understanding rather than on good intentions only. A good analysis and a thorough understanding of all aspects of the conflict are important prerequisites for successful mediation in intractable conflicts. 2. Mediation must take place at an optimal or ripe moment. Early mediation may be premature and late mediation may face too many obstacles. A ripe moment describes a phase in the life cycle of the conflict where the parties feel exhausted and hurt, or where they may not wish to countenance any further losses and are prepared to commit to a settlement, or at least believe one to be possible. In destructive and escalating conflicts, mediation can have any chance of success only if it can capture a particular moment when the adversaries, for a variety of reasons, appear most amenable to change. Timing of intervention in an intractable conflict is an issue of crucial importance, and one that must be properly assessed by any would be mediator. 3. Given the nature and complexity of intractable conflicts, successful mediation requires a co-ordinated approach between different aspects of intervention. Mediation here requires leverage and resources to nudge the parties toward a settlement, but also acute psychological understanding of the parties' feelings and grievances. The kind of mediation we are talking about here is mediation that is embedded in various disciplinary frameworks, ranging from problem-solving workshops to more traditional diplomatic methods. No one aspect or form of behavior will suffice to turn an intractable conflict around. Diverse and complementary methods, an interdisciplinary focus, and a full range of intervention methods responding to the many concerns and fears of the adversaries, are required to achieve some accommodation between parties in an intractable conflict. 4. Mediating intractable conflicts require commitment, resources, persistence, and experience. Mediators of high rank or prestige are more likely to possess these attributes and thus are more likely to be successful in intractable conflicts. Such mediators have the capacity to appeal directly to the domestic constituency and build up support for some peace agreement. Influential, high ranking or prestigious mediators have more at stake, can marshal more resources, have better information, and can devote more time to an intractable conflict. Such mediators can work toward achieving some visible signs of progress in the short term, and identify steps that need to be taken to deal with the issues of a longer term peace objectives. Influential mediators can work better within the constraints of intractable conflicts, and more likely to elicit accommodative responses from the adversaries. 5. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be successful when there are recognizable leaders within each party, where the leaders are accepted as legitimate by all concerned, and where they have considerable control over their territory. An intractable conflict between parties with competing leaders and constituents (e.g. Northern Ireland) can prove very difficult to deal with. Where there are recognizable leaders, each from the mainstream of their respective community, and where each embodies the aspirations and expectations of their respective community, provides mediators with individuals who may have a serious impact on official diplomacy. Where there are competing leadership factions, state institutions, and governance capacity are all too uncertain, and the chances of successful mediation decline sharply. 6. Mediation in intractable conflicts is more likely to be effective if there are no sections in each community committed to the continuation of violence. Such parties are usually described as spoilers. Spoilers in such a context have much to lose from a peaceful outcome and much to gain from the continuation of violence. Their presence and activities constitute a major obstacle to any mediation effort. 7. Where an intractable conflict involves a major power, or major powers have interests (vital or otherwise) at stake, it is very unlikely that mediation will be attempted, and if attempted, very unlikely that it will succeed. The involvement of major powers in any capacity in an intractable conflict poses too serious a constraint on any mediation effort. A major power involvement in an intractable conflict provides a clear indication of the difficulty of initiating any form of mediation. All these factors provide some guidance on when mediation might make a contribution to intractable conflicts, and when this will be extremely difficult. Surely other factors are present too, factors such as commitment to mediation and willingness to achieve a suitable outcome, desire to stop a cycle of violence, etc. These may be hard to identify and assess, but their presence or absence will surely affect the process and outcome of any mediation effort. Conclusion Intractable conflicts are driven by antagonists with a strong sense of identity, grievance of some sort (economic or political), and a desire to use violence to change the status quo. In places as diverse as Israel, Sudan, Northern Ireland, Congo, Cyprus, Korea, Kashmir, and many others, intractable conflicts are responsible for continued violence and loss of lives. These conflicts threaten regional order and international stability. It is hard to get out of an intractable situation. Hard, but not impossible. There is nothing pre-ordained about the path of any conflict, intractable or otherwise. What I have tried to suggest above is that mediation may offer the prospect of escaping the dilemmas of intractability. Mediation offers the possibility of a jointly acceptable outcome without giving in on one's core values and beliefs. Under some conditions mediation can actually break through an intractable cycle of violence. The availability of suitable mediators may help to transform an intractable conflict and produce a sustained agreement. For this to happen certain conditions have to be present. When the circumstances are indeed propitious, few processes can do more to reduce intractability of a conflict than a well planned mediation. We should be aware of these conditions and do our best to bring intractable conflicts to an end.

Thoughts on Gender Bias in Co-Parenting Mediation

by Jeffrey J. Beaton, Cassi Vick June 2012

Our office received a number of compelling comments in response to the May 2011 article, “Thoughts on Mediating Custody.” Many of those who commented voiced a  concern with the manner in which gender dynamics in both the courts and in mediation might affect the outcome of custody mediation. In this article, we examine the issue of gender in the mediation process, and provide you with tools to remove such gender bias from the calculus of mediation.
Gender permeates the dynamics of our daily personal interactions. The concepts of gender extend beyond the biological differences of being a man or a woman. The terms male and female imply cognitive and behavioral characteristics which define the  cultural roles for each. These differing roles have been so solidly integrated into the fabric of our interactions that those who break out of their gendered behavioral patterns are viewed negatively. For example, the emerging concept of the “stay at home Dad” is sometimes viewed with suspicion by society. Therefore, when acting in the role of a neutral facilitator during co-parenting mediation, it is imperative to avoid accepting any stereotypes which harshly define and separate the participants in the process.
Sociological study of gender falls into two basic categories. The first paradigm describes men and women as two separate and unequal entities: the natural woman and the rational man. In this view, women's social roles are inherently different from those of  men. There is a focus on the “soft” natures of women as peacekeeping, cooperative, tender, and caring. Women are resigned to being so called, “soccer moms.” They are expected to be caretakers of children and home, tasks that are presumed to require fewer rational and problem-solving skills. In contrast, men play the role of the classic breadwinner. Men bring home the money, control the finances, and are responsible for long-term planning. Men perform these duties while maintaining a calm and rational sense of self and the world around them.
Feminist study  has worked tirelessly to debunk this dichotomy. The feminist paradigm  views gender roles as imagined and prescribed. It denies the inherent natures of men as rational and women as natural.  Post-modern feminism examines the influence of  language, social discourse, and cultural symbols in creating gender bias. Modern study does not rule out the individual and his or her experiences, rather it attempts to transcend the labels that have boxed genders into explicit functions and categories.
We all make judgments based on gender. These judgments are the result of life experiences and interactions within the family and community. Sometimes we may be aware that we have categorized a person based on gender. At other times, our gender biases are manifested in a more subtle fashion. When mediating co-parenting disputes it is difficult to avoid the pitfalls associated with socially prescribed gender roles and the coincident bias. Regardless, mediators are expected to act as unbiased neutrals. Therefore when mediating co-parenting issues, we must make an affirmative effort to avoid gender bias.
Mediators in our office have found several techniques useful in avoiding gender bias while resolving co-parenting disputes. Studies indicate that women falter in situations which involve conflict. Women are encouraged to maintain a modest and selfless persona to facilitate cooperation and pleasantness. This social conditioning and expectation often cause a female to be unable to advocate for her views. Therefore, it is important to engage women actively in the mediation by providing a clearly articulated structure rather than an open-ended process. Creating goals and checkpoints before and during the mediation may help female participants to be certain that their interests have been addressed. At the beginning of each session, mediators might ask the couple to outline a set of goals they would like to achieve in that session. Jotting these down and using them as guideposts for the session gives the couple a means of  staying on track. This structure also provides a reference to ensure that each feels negotiation was fair and unbiased.
Like most mediators, we administer a domestic abuse screening tool before beginning the process. This provides us with an early opportunity to become familiar with the participants and their individual goals.  After reviewing the initial screening tool, you may decide that it would be beneficial to meet with the parties in caucus.  This gives the mediator a chance to assess the individual outside of his or her relationship to the other party. These caucuses allow each participant's concerns to be heard distinctly.  This helps to avoid the possibility that a gender based bias is created between one party and the mediator.
Be careful to use this technique judiciously. Early caucus has the potential to create further distrust between the parties. There is a possibility that one of the parties may believe that early caucus gives the opposing party's argument an advantage. Let your expertise and your gut guide you.  Explain the purpose of your caucus to the parties and ask if the participants would like to continue together rather than meeting individually. Remind the parties to keep notes of concerns that arise so that they may be voiced during caucus or in group session. These simple courtesies avoid accidental bias.
Mediators must also avoid what sociologists would refer to as stereotype threat. Stereotype threat occurs when individuals fulfill negative stereotypes because of the language or behavior of others. In these instances, stereotypes may become self-fulfilling prophecies.  A woman may hear the words, “the best interest of the child,” and understand it to mean giving up her life and dedicating it to the care of the home and children. She may deny her own desire to return to school or to build a career. In contrast, a man may hear, “the best interest of the child,” and understand it to mean earning a higher income to provide better financial support for the child. He may deny his desire to participate more fully in the child's life. In our office, mediators provide the parties with the state's statutes regarding child custody and the best interests of the child. We often remind the parties that the court may allow older children to voice what is in his or her best interest. Finally, ask each party to consider his or her individual, as well as  parental needs. These techniques provide a reality test against overreaching, and an opportunity to avoid under-reaching, due to a perceived need to fulfill gender stereotypes.
Some believe that gender bias can only be removed from the process by co-mediating with both a male a female facilitator. This approach gives each participant a sense that their issues are both heard and understood by an empathetic ear. Occasionally, mediators in our office have employed gender balanced co-mediation where it is requested by the participants. We have found that employing the above-described tools avoids gender bias and is sufficient to resolve co-parenting disputes equitably. On this issue, we would expect the mediator's expertise and the participant's needs to drive the approach to unbiased mediation. 
Mediation has the potential to create a hospitable environment for participants of both genders. To reach this potential, mediators must be aware of gender bias issues and the possibility for imbalance in the participant's negotiation. We hope that this article has raised your awareness of the many ways gender bias may creep into co-parenting disputes. Further, we hope that this article has suggested a few of the tools you may need to reach gender-neutral and equitable resolutions.

The Power of Gatekeepers

by Diana Mercer June 2012

A gatekeeper is someone who frequently comes into contact with the demographic you are trying to reach. 
For example, as a family law mediation firm, I get referrals from therapists and accountants.  When people’s marriages are in trouble, they often reach out to therapists and accountants.   As a result, therapists and accountants come into contact with lots and lots of people getting divorced. This means they’re my gatekeepers.  Therapists and accountants can potentially refer me multiple cases each year.  So that’s where I spend my networking time.
 I joined the local therapists’ organization and the family law section of the accountants’ organization and actively participate in the meetings and committees. 
So who are your gatekeepers and where do they go?  What publications do they read? What functions do they attend? What kinds of people come into contact with your target client demographic over and over again?  What kind of professional could send you multiple cases each year?  If you’re a personal injury mediator, it’s probably litigation attorneys or insurance adjusters.  If you’re a construction mediator, it’s architects and builders.   Spend time in their professional associations, write for their newsletters, and network with their members. 
Network with gatekeepers in a way that suits your individual style.
Even if you aren’t particularly outgoing, you can make good use of your time at gatekeepers’ groups’ networking functions.  If you are more of a workhorse, you can gain points by volunteering on gatekeepers’ committees.  What better way to prove that you are honest, trustworthy, hard working and worthy of their referrals? 
The key to networking is figuring out what you would enjoy that fits within these categories. For example, I really enjoy networking with psychologists.  They do interesting work and tend to be very interesting people.  When I go to their seminars and luncheons, I always enjoy the speaker because psychology is so different from law.  It is never a chore for me to go to one of these events because I enjoy the company and the content.  I was less enthralled with hanging out with the CPA group but I did learn a lot at the seminars and cemented some valuable contacts at the catered luncheons. Plus I got CLE credit.
Your gatekeepers will be different than my gatekeepers but the process is the same. 
Your client referral sources will be different than my client referral sources but again, the process is the same. 

Mediation Keys to Mediator Success: Ground Rules

by Dudley Braun May 2012

Preface
Some words, spoken at the right time, in the right way, in the right context, can be particularly powerful. They can sometimes cause a new thought or unfreeze a position. This compilation is intended to assist trained mediators and add possibilities to their already extensive vocabularies. It offers many ‘tried and true’ expressions in a variety of contexts to help them unlock hidden possibilities and improve mediation successes.
These sayings will help the mediator:

• Get information
  
• Improve rapport
  
• Broaden perspectives
  
• Alter viewpoints
  
• Elicit decisions

The questions and statements presented here are simply given “unadorned”, compiled from a variety of sources and mediation experiences. Conventionally, little scenarios and dialogue vignettes might have been invented to embed them in context and bulk up the book. While such a treatment might have added a lot of entertaining “color”, authenticity would have been the tradeoff. The authenticity of the straight “lists” of bare quotations are easily judged for themselves, suitable for many contexts. In this sense the book is offered like a handbook or reference manual. While words play their part, no less important are: Pacing, pausing, hesitation, facial expression, tone of voice and body language. For example, most people, when they hear a question asked in the tone of a statement (instead of the usual rising tone at the end) feel less defensive and answer more openly and truthfully. Silence also works wonders.
Other important mediator skills are assumed to have been acquired other ways. Skills such as when to separate the parties; when to go over facts again; when to tell stories; when to let “negotiation fatigue” help things along.
Although this material can be useful in many types of cases, the primary focus is on civil cases such as contracts, professional services, personal injuries, torts ....etc.
If you find the book useful, I’d love to hear about it. Please pass along comments and suggested additions for a future edition. Send them to: Dudley_Braun@Hotmail.com

How to Use This Collection --

From this random-order collection of expressions presented one right after another, simply select and use any seemingly helpful expression wherever they are appropriate. Types of situations are roughly categorized into Sections denoted by an underlined subtitle. Some expressions may strike a chord of usefulness more than others. Slide the reading eye down past the ones that don’t click, hunting for the ones that do. Since there are so many expressions and since some convey the same idea with different wording, a personal working set might be selected for easy access and remembrance by highlighting or extracting favorites. [Words in these brackets] are editorial asides for the reader, such as [When a hard position is stated] then “.....”
Enrollment and Ground rules – Supplementing “Mediator’s Standard Introduction”

"This is a process in which the two of you have come together to present and discuss a problem or dispute that’s going on. Then you’ll have the opportunity to present and discuss solutions for resolving the matter.”

“A few ground rules are important to help the process flow smoothly: One person at a time speaking, no interrupting, no name-calling, no making faces or emitting rude sounds of disgust or disbelief. Basic common courtesy will help a lot. Agreed?”

“We’ll make progress more quickly if we take care to avoid ‘linguistic irritators’. Okay?”

“Do you want to achieve an out-of-court settlement?”

“Do I have your commitment to listen to each other; work hard toward a resolution; and bargain in good faith? Good faith includes keeping to the truth about the facts.” “Check whether you have whatever information you need to settle the case?”

“The final money terms and your success depends on taking into account the way the other party feels about how they’ve been treated during negotiation.”

“Although tangibles like the money settlement are important; intangibles such as pride, reputation and good will are very real and very important as you craft a resolution together.”

“You’re both competent to come to an agreement.”

“Today we’re not going to conduct this as a “contest” to be won or lost. That’s not what we’re about. Instead, we’re going to discover the “best voluntary solution”.”

“Today is the day to look forward, not dwell on the past.”

“You work creatively toward finding a resolution that feels good or at least workable and lets both parties leave satisfied or with an appealing solution.”

“I’m not going to try to solve your dispute or your problems. Your job is to figure out how to sufficiently take into account each other’s interests so you can craft a mutually satisfactory agreement.”

“Part of my role is to help you avoid common mistakes, such as: - Insensitive or pugnacious remarks - Guessing what the other party will do or find acceptable - Getting too competitive toward winning instead of compromise - Giving up too soon.”

“I’ll guide the process and you’re welcome to suggest process changes at any time.”

“I’ll be neutral but not passive. Hopefully I can point out things neither of you have thought much about.”

“What kinds of things do you want to happen or not happen in this process?”

“How would you like this to go?”

“We all want to be heard with complete attention. I encourage you to really listen to each other and avoid the temptation to anticipate the speaker’s endings. Keep up your focus on the speaker’s words, not on what you’re going to say next.”

“It’s particularly useful to ratchet up your active listening skills and listen intently to what’s beneath the words.”

“Listen for anything new; for something you didn’t know before.” “Patience, flexibility, and self-determination are the keys of this process.”

“My job is not to tell you the answer. That’s for someone wearing a long black robe. I just help people figure out the puzzle pieces and how they might line up.”

“What works is: Courage and Compassion; Humor and Humility; Tolerance and Understanding.”

“We have the best chance of a good resolution if you both are able to talk together constructively, exploring and understanding each other’s interests and needs.”

“The way you get a solution is to cooperate with each other as you explore what might work for both of you.”

“Sharing interests and needs will assist you two in brainstorming options together.”

“The solution you create together doesn’t have to be what a judge would order.”

“I’m going to ask you to reflect back what interests and needs the other side expresses.”

“Conversation is a learning process where new helpful information will surface and be considered thoughtfully.”

“You may be adamant on one issue, but other issues may not be simply black or white.”

“You may be at an end point, but the other party may see things in a new way based on the discussion we’re going to have.”

“The more information you get, the wider your frame of reference and therefore the more possibilities you can see.”

“I think we can achieve a mutually satisfactory agreement efficiently and in a friendly way. As I see it, in order for us to do this we have to be willing to listen carefully to each other, share information about interests, and brainstorm for value creation ideas, not just dividing up a given amount. “

“At some point later it might be useful to spend some time looking at best and worst possible outcomes and probabilities.”

“It’s helpful to try to let go of the past in favor of concentrating on the present and the options available to you right now.”

“We’re going to experiment, try things and adjust until a workable combination shows up.”

“[When joint session is resisted] The other party is offended. They don’t want a joint session. I want you to meet them. I don’t see any disadvantage at all in having a joint session. It doesn’t have to be contentious. What is there to talk about? I told them ____.”

Join us: Mix, Mingle, & Connect

Mix, Mingle, & Connect

Mix, Mingle, & Connect
This is a great opportunity to mix, mingle &
connect with some of the area’s top business leaders and entrepreneurs
Where & When                           
Miramar Cultural Center                           
2400 Civic Center Place, Miramar 33025               
Thursday, June 14, 2012                         
5:30PM  - 7:00PM                           
$5 Members - $10 Non-Members
Entrance includes Delicious Hors d’oeuvres & Drink Ticket                           Catered by the Miramar Cultural Center
     Great giveaways by Living Social & Miramar Cultural Arts Center. Registration Required

Group Whynot

We offer mediation services for gay, lesbian and transgender partnership disputes. Contact us today for a free 30minute consultation: info@groupwhynot.com

The woman who defied Saudi's driving ban and put it on YouTube

Check out this story on CNN!

 This is an amazing story - we need to support women in other nations!

Manal al-Sharif, honored for "creative dissent" at the Oslo Freedom Forum, says she hopes her story will inspire Saudi women.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Manal al-Sharif uploaded a video of herself driving in Saudi Arabia in 2011
• A religious edict bans women from driving in the conservative kingdom
• Some women in the country are planning a driving demonstration on June 17

Oslo, Norway (CNN) -- Growing up in Saudi Arabia, Manal al-Sharif was taught in school that listening to music -- just like driving, showing her face in public or making a decision without consulting her male guardian -- was forbidden and sinful.

She believed so strongly in music's satanic powers that she burned many of her father's and brother's cassette tapes so they couldn't play them anymore.

Then one day in 2001, al-Sharif was about to dub over one of her brother's American tapes with a lecture on Islam when curiosity got the best of her. She let herself listen to a few bars. And the first song to touch her ears helped reroute the course of her life.

It was the Backstreet Boys' "Show Me the Meaning of Being Lonely."

"They had been telling us that music was Satan's flute -- was a path to adultery," she said in a recent presentation at the Oslo Freedom Forum, a human rights conference in Norway. "This song sounded so pure, so beautiful, so angelic. It can be anything but evil to me. And that day I realized how lonely I was in the world I isolated myself in."

Al-Sharif, now 33, gained international attention last summer after she uploaded a YouTube video of herself driving in a country where women are banned from doing so. Now she is the face of Saudi Arabia's Women2Drive movement, which plans to hold demonstrations on June 17 calling for women in that Middle Eastern country to be able to do something that's downright banal everywhere else in the world: drive themselves around town in an automobile.

While driving is technically not illegal for women in Saudi Arabia, a religious edict, or fatwa, issued in the early '90s, banned the practice. A statement from the Ministry of Interior backed up the decree.

Al-Sharif's action followed a November 6, 1990, demonstration in which women in Riyadh, the capital, drove without permission. Since her protest, small groups of women periodically have staged what The New York Times termed "random acts of women driving" to stand up for their rights.

Al-Sharif follows in that tradition, but she has caused much more of an uproar.

But, for her, it all started simply.

The divorced mother of one says she likes to make yearly challenges to herself around her birthday, April 25. One year, she went sky diving. In 2011, she wanted to drive. So in May last year, an acquaintance filmed al-Sharif while she drove through the streets of Khobar wearing a black headscarf and sunglasses but not hiding her face. "We want to change the country," she said in the video, according to a translation posted on YouTube. "A woman, during an emergency, what's she going to do? God forbid her husband's with her and he has a heart attack. ..."

"Not all of us live luxurious lives -- are spoiled like queens and have drivers," she said, in reference to the fact that many women have to pay for drivers to get around town.

Al-Sharif's act of defiance did not go unnoticed. The next day, police detained her. She was held for nine days without being charged, she said, and then released after considerable international pressure, much of it coming from the Twitter hashtag #Women2Drive and corresponding pages on Facebook. The next month, on June 17, dozens of women in Saudi Arabia got behind the wheel and drove to protest the ban, according to news reports.

One year later, the Women2Drive campaign is planning to have a second go of it.

The group again is encouraging Saudi women to go out and drive on June 17. Amnesty International has collected thousands of portraits of people who support the movement and plans to send them to the Saudi royal family, said Cristina Finch, the U.S. chapter's policy and advocacy director for women's human rights. And al-Sharif said demonstrations are expected to take place at Saudi embassies around the world.

Al-Sharif is so concerned about her family's safety that she doesn't plan to drive on June 17. "That would endanger my family, not only me."

iReport: What if you couldn't drive for a day?

But the campaign isn't really about driving, she said. Driving, in one sense, is a stand-in for other issues. Women in Saudi Arabia won't be allowed to vote or hold public office until 2015. They can't get married, leave the country, go to school or open bank accounts without permission from a male guardian, who usually is the father or husband. Much of public life is segregated by gender.

Al-Sharif also hopes driving is a starting point -- that it will empower silent women.

"When women break that taboo and they're not afraid to drive that car by herself -- that's it," she said. "Now she has the guts to speak up for herself and take action."

In essence, the Women2Drive campaign is asking women of Saudi Arabia to go through some of the same transformations al-Sharif did.

In addition to her Backstreet Boys moment, al-Sharif has been subject to several dramatic turning points in her life. In a moderate family, she was the Islamic extremist, she said, supporting jihadists of the 1980s, including Osama bin Laden. After the September 11 terrorist attacks, she took a hard look at her beliefs.

"When 9/11 happened, the extremists said it's God's punishment to America for what they're doing to Muslims," she said in her Oslo presentation. "I was confused which side to take. I watched the news that night and I saw this picture -- it was a video of a man throwing himself from one of these (World Trade Center) towers. He was escaping the fire. I remember that night I couldn't sleep. That picture of that man throwing himself was in my head and it was ringing a bell. Something is wrong. There is no religion on Earth (that) can accept such mercilessness, such cruelness. My heroes were nothing but bloody terrorists, and that was the turning point in my life."

Another change occurred after her divorce, which she said happened without her consent. "I didn't even know," she said. "He just went and divorced me. That's it."

After that, she said, she stopped deferring to the men in her life, including her father, who is her current guardian. Instead of "begging" them to allow her to take a job or drive a car, she said she politely tells them that this is the way things will be.

"I reached a point in my life where I'd had enough of men controlling me," she said. "I stopped asking for permission. ... If you change (a Saudi woman's) mind-set -- (if) she's not weak, she doesn't need permission -- the people around her will change."

Her biggest problems now concern her son, who is 6.

"The kids in the school, they harass him and bully him because they know I'm his mom," she said. She tried to explain the situation to him but couldn't find the exact words. "I promise you when you're older you'll be really proud of your mom," she recalls saying.

She keeps files of news clippings and awards in hopes that, when he's older, he will see them and decide she is not the sinful, dangerous woman her critics portray.

"All I did was ask for rights. I didn't attack anyone. I didn't harass anyone. I didn't oppose the system or the country or the authority. All I said is, 'Why can't I drive?' "

Her work life further complicates this situation.

To speak at the human rights conference last month in Norway, al-Sharif said she had to quit her job as a computer scientist at Saudi Aramco, the oil company. Her employer, she said, told her she could not continue to work if she was going to speak up. The company did not respond to a CNN request for an interview.

The only way she could find work at this point, she said, is to leave Saudi Arabia.

But if she does so, she said, she would lose custody of her son.

She doesn't know what she's going to do.

"It's so hard," she said, before backtracking and putting on a stronger face. "It's OK. I'm used to these things. There's always a price to pay."

She doesn't expect change to come quickly in Saudi Arabia. But she hopes that her own story -- one of change and a call for rights -- could be the inspiration for other Saudi women.

"It took me a long, long time to break the chains that's inside me."

She added: "We're just keeping our heads up. We're not giving up."

At the end of the Oslo Freedom Forum, al-Sharif received an award for "creative dissent" -- another accolade she can put in a scrapbook for her son. In her acceptance speech, she humbly said she didn't know what the word "dissent" meant until she heard she had won the prize.

After learning the word's meaning, she said she doesn't think of herself as a dissident. "I find myself someone who is driven by her own struggle," she said.

Then she ended her speech with a metaphor: "The rain begins with a single drop."