Paying down Conflict Without Drawing Blood--Use Talks

"DO IT AS WELL AS I'LL SUE!!! "

"WE'LL SEE YOU IN COURT!! "

"SUE THE BASTARD FOR EVERYBODY HE'S WORTH. "

Do any of these quotes sound familiar with you? Litigation as a lodge for resolving disputes has been the standard practice for generations, but ask yourself, is it always how to get? I don't know a constant, but those statements above sound a lot like blanket threats to me--not very resolving all the way. In fact, using litigation to prove deceptive right is no different than getting into a fist-fight with the person because they both place a win-lose outcome.

What's faulty with win-lose? Doesn't that solve the condition?

Well, litigation and fist-fighting both create hope for settle a dispute by definitely naming one side the victor and the other side the loser. That may be all and well, except that it doesn't cover the underlying emotions and requirements of both parties in the direction of dispute. No one really need to be labeled as the villain inside of the matter and deep indignation, even revenge are often generated because of this win-lose process. Think of two neighbors that are classified as having a dispute about ownership with regards to a tree. One party decides court action the other party roughly small claims court and the judge awards the location of the winner and the loser. That might be fine if sleep issues is unwilling to cooperate inside of the matter, but there is an even greater emotional need that was not being met here. Both neighbors will would want leave the courtroom and reclaim their respective homes and live side by side for quite some consumption. Is drawing blood the best recourse so that they can settle their dispute when they still need to maintain something of an ongoing relationship to one another? Probably not.

So how can a dispute be done with differently?

Litigation represents one avenue of dispute resolution--the last group of defense, if you will. In dealing with warfare, there is a force continuum that you should follow: effective direct contact, direct negotiation, mediation, and finally litigation. Too often, people commit to skip steps and go directly for the lethal force--the litigation, well because its what they know and have grown accustom to clos television and media. Judgment is popular. The poor step is mediation, that needs to be viewed as the bridge between negotiation and suits. Mediation is where both parties come together and a neutral third-party mediator. The mediator neither diagnosing nor advises either party into their decisions, but rather helps unlock them in their positions so that a mutually-agreeable solution can be reached. Because both parties create and concur with the solution together, neither side feels any resentment or anger left experienced after the court decision. Mediation is getting voluntary, so both parties accustomed to retain their rights shrink proceed with litigation in order, but they often find that collaboration beats competition.

In my courses, I teach that level against force merely proves who is stronger. It does very little to renovate the underlying problems and meet the needs that are hidden ground level. Instead of working resistant to the person, set aside the emotion while keeping focused on solving the hardships. Use direct negotiation techniques or mediation in your case in reaching an manageable solution.

.