英文原文
The Mental Process in Commercial Mediation –RKPT
Commercial mediation is a dynamic process. The most effective and successful mediations occur after exchange of substantive information and evidence regarding the main issues in dispute. Decision makers for the parties, including insurers, should be present and participate in the mediation. Through years of experience as a mediator, I have noticed a mental and emotional pattern with participants when resolving commercial disputes. Participants generally start from the “I’m Right” mindset and move toward resolution as facts are more clearly understood, some legal principles are explored, and the realities of dispute economics come into focus.
As with everything in the law there are exceptions, but almost invariably the parties approach the mediation process with a specific biased mindset; the party is correct in its facts and conclusions. Sometimes this posture is simply a negotiating tactic. But just as often, parties truly believe they are undeniably correct in their position. This can be reinforced by their counsel’s advice and legal analysis, and (frankly) sometimes despite their counsel’s well-founded advice. There are often injured egos and hurt feelings, even in the commercial context. When both parties are in this mind frame, resolution is unobtainable. The parties are on opposite sides of the resolution spectrum, as depicted in the diagram.
In order to work toward resolution, facts are explored, examined, and tested during the mediation process. This is typically the hardest part of the mediation process. The challenge arises from basic human nature. Our brains are wired to accept electrical signals from our ears and our eyes. Those signals are interpreted based upon our own expectations. As a result, we do not see reality, we see a (our) reality. It takes effort, patience, and persistence to assist participants in realizing the facts as they see them may not be as others perceive them or the conclusions drawn therefrom. The mediator should ensure in advance of the mediation the proper exchange of information has occurred necessary to bring about likelihood of resolution, with an eye toward limiting discovery expenses, to the extent possible.
Factual assumptions and conclusions are explored, and even challenged depending upon the mediator’s practice, using skills as a facilitator or evaluator as appropriate. Varying perceptions of the parties may need to be accepted, even if not actually reconciled in the mediation. Through a guided mediation process, pre-mediation engagement by the mediator can help facilitate and increase the chances of resolution on the day of mediation.
It is imperative the parties move beyond the factual disputes that cannot be resolved in order to reach a resolution. For example, a contractor asserts a roof leak had been fixed once after initial installation. However, the other participant produces recent photographs and videos of the roof leaking. Despite this clear evidence, the contractor refuses to visit the site and investigate the roof leak. The contractor takes the position the roof is not leaking because it has already been remediated. It is clear this participant, despite reality, is not interested in seeing the perceptions of others or exploring the idea his facts are outdated. Obviously, it is entirely possible his crew fixed the roof, but another leak manifested later in time. The lack of a reality check by the contractor makes this mediation a challenge. This is where counsel can assist the participant in acceptance. However, sometimes, as we all know, an attorney-client relationship is such that counsel has an inability to challenge his/her own client. The mediator needs to facilitate that change or recognize the parties cannot agree on the facts and be able to move the parties forward despite such disagreement, or in certain circumstances, obstinance.
As the mediation progresses through discussions and time, the participants’ respective perceptions will shift, even if they do not admit it to the mediator or their counsel. While parties may attempt to hide their change in perception, an observant mediator will pick up on these shifts. Effective communication can be artfully implemented to help move the parties toward the zone of agreement. As the facts are established, including factual disputes explored, the parties will then typically take a legal posture as applied to the facts in an effort to convince the other side, and the mediator, the strength of their position.
The exploration of the application of law to the facts usually takes only a short period of time. The parties will have their opinions about what a judge, jury, or arbitrator will accept as fact or do with the facts, and the mediator may have his/her own opinion. The influence of legal analysis, even if brief, can have an impact on the parties, exposing risk to their positions, even assuming their facts are all correct. Sometimes this impact is minimal, but sometimes it can be quite significant. In our example, when the contractor fails to honor a warranty claim, even if the issue was once remediated, it still exposes the contractor to liability. It may not matter how many times a construction defect needs to be addressed, if it is covered under a warranty, or whether such claim arises under a contractual or negligence theory.
Once the parties have moved off the polar positions where they maintain the “I’m Right” posture, after the facts have been thoroughly vetted and the legal positions explored, then the economics of the dispute can be addressed. In most cases, this becomes the most important and significant factor in a commercial dispute, which helps the mediator facilitate the final resolution. This last phase brings the dispute’s financial impact into focus.
Mediators often uncover financial motivations for a party’s willingness to resolve the matter. These economic motivations can certainly include the obvious (i.e., a contractor wants to get paid for his/her work, or an owner does not want to pay for defective work). Obviously, costs of litigation are explored and analyzed- but economic influences may have nothing to do with the dispute itself. Other economic factors should be considered. For example, a contractor dealing with a defect claim may be half a continent away from the project, with no strong ties to the project’s local subcontractors. Where it may cost a local contractor a nominal amount to address the remediation, the costs for the out-of-state contractor may be relatively exponential. Sometimes it is discovered that one party is motivated to resolve the matter to clear up funding for another project. There are a myriad of reasons that can be unrelated to the dispute as to why a party will resolve a matter. Most of the time, these motivations are kept between the party and the mediator. It is the mediator’s challenge to utilize this information toward a resolution, in most cases without disclosing such motivations to the other party. With effort and patience, difficult cases can be resolved – even those where there is little to no expectation of a resolution.
While the economics influence stage can have quite a powerful impact on the mediation process, one should be cautioned from starting with economics influence arguments. The parties, even in the commercial context, must make the mental and emotional journey that allows them to get to a point where they can have a pragmatic and practical discussion about the effect economics has on the dispute.
The resolution process appears evident as a matter of human nature; a way to accept and move past a perceived or actual loss that invariably occurs during a dispute. Some parties may attempt to shortcut this process, but this is a sure way to have a very quick and failed mediation. Even if one party is further along the resolution path, either through preparation ahead of or experience with the mediation process, the other party may need time to catch up. The mediator must promote patience and be persistent to permit each party to proceed with their own journey toward the zone of agreement.
For successful mediations, it is important to select a mediator who understands the natural process for resolution experienced by participants. The mediator will use his/her facilitative and evaluative skills as appropriate to assist the parties in reaching a resolution. The participants, with the help of their advocates, will be successful in reaching resolution when the dynamic process is fully utilized through patience, persistence, and effort.
For assistance, please contact Richard Hamilton at 513-721-3330 or rhamilton@rkpt.com.
中文翻译
商业调解中的心理过程 –RKPT
商业调解是一个动态过程。最有效和成功的调解发生在交换了关于争议主要问题的实质性信息和证据之后。各方的决策者，包括保险公司，应该出席并参与调解。通过多年作为调解员的经验，我注意到参与者在解决商业争议时存在一种心理和情感模式。参与者通常从“我是对的”心态开始，随着事实更清晰地被理解、一些法律原则被探讨，以及争议经济现实变得清晰，逐渐走向解决。
与法律中的一切一样，也有例外，但几乎总是各方以特定的偏见心态进入调解过程；一方认为自己的事实和结论是正确的。有时这种姿态只是一种谈判策略。但同样常见的是，各方真正相信自己无可否认地正确。这可能会被其律师的建议和法律分析所强化，并且（坦率地说）有时尽管律师有充分的建议。即使在商业背景下，也常常有受伤的自尊和受伤的感情。当双方都处于这种心态时，解决是不可能的。各方处于解决光谱的对立面，如图中所示。
为了朝着解决方向努力，在调解过程中事实被探讨、检查和测试。这通常是调解过程中最困难的部分。挑战源于基本的人性。我们的大脑被设计成接受来自耳朵和眼睛的电信号。这些信号根据我们自己的期望被解释。结果，我们看不到现实，我们看到的是（我们的）现实。需要努力、耐心和坚持来帮助参与者认识到，他们看到的事实可能不像其他人感知的那样或从中得出的结论。调解员应确保在调解前已进行必要的信息交换，以增加解决的可能性，同时尽可能限制发现费用。
事实假设和结论被探讨，甚至根据调解员的实践受到挑战，适当地使用促进者或评估者的技能。各方的不同感知可能需要被接受，即使实际上在调解中没有调和。通过引导的调解过程，调解员的调解前参与可以帮助促进并增加调解日解决的机会。
各方必须超越无法解决的事实争议才能达成解决。例如，一个承包商声称屋顶漏水在初始安装后已被修复一次。然而，另一方参与者提供了屋顶漏水的近期照片和视频。尽管有这些明确的证据，承包商拒绝访问现场调查屋顶漏水。承包商采取立场认为屋顶没有漏水，因为它已经被修复。很明显，这个参与者尽管面对现实，却对看到他人的感知或探讨他的事实可能过时没有兴趣。显然，完全有可能他的团队修复了屋顶，但后来出现了另一个漏水。承包商缺乏现实检查使这次调解成为挑战。这是律师可以帮助参与者接受的地方。然而，有时，正如我们所知，律师-客户关系使得律师无法挑战自己的客户。调解员需要促进这种改变，或者认识到各方无法就事实达成一致，并能够推动各方前进，尽管存在这种分歧，或在某些情况下，固执。
随着调解通过讨论和时间进展，参与者的各自感知将会转变，即使他们不向调解员或律师承认。虽然各方可能试图隐藏感知的变化，但观察敏锐的调解员会察觉到这些转变。可以巧妙地实施有效沟通，帮助各方走向协议区。随着事实的确立，包括探讨的事实争议，各方通常会采取法律立场，应用于事实，以努力说服对方和调解员其立场的强度。
法律应用于事实的探讨通常只需要很短的时间。各方将有自己的意见，关于法官、陪审团或仲裁员会接受什么作为事实或如何处理事实，调解员可能有自己的意见。法律分析的影响，即使简短，也可能对各方产生影响，暴露其立场的风险，即使假设他们的事实都是正确的。有时这种影响很小，但有时可能相当显著。在我们的例子中，当承包商未能履行保修索赔时，即使问题曾经被修复，仍然使承包商面临责任。可能无关紧要多少次需要处理建筑缺陷，如果它在保修范围内，或者这种索赔是基于合同还是过失理论。
一旦各方从他们保持“我是对的”姿态的极端位置移开，在事实被彻底审查和法律立场被探讨之后，争议的经济学就可以被解决。在大多数情况下，这成为商业争议中最重要和显著的因素，帮助调解员促进最终解决。这最后阶段使争议的财务影响变得清晰。
调解员经常发现一方愿意解决此事的财务动机。这些经济动机当然可以包括明显的（例如，承包商希望获得工作报酬，或业主不希望为有缺陷的工作付费）。显然，诉讼成本被探讨和分析-但经济影响可能与争议本身无关。应考虑其他经济因素。例如，处理缺陷索赔的承包商可能距离项目半个大陆，与项目的当地分包商没有紧密联系。当地承包商处理修复可能只需名义金额，而外州承包商的成本可能相对指数级增长。有时发现一方有动机解决此事以清理另一个项目的资金。有许多原因可能与争议无关，解释一方为何会解决此事。大多数时候，这些动机被保留在当事人和调解员之间。调解员的挑战是利用这些信息达成解决，在大多数情况下不向对方披露这些动机。通过努力和耐心，困难的案件可以得到解决 – 即使是那些几乎没有或没有解决期望的案件。
虽然经济影响阶段可能对调解过程产生相当强大的影响，但应谨慎不要从经济影响论点开始。各方，即使在商业背景下，必须进行心理和情感之旅，使他们能够达到一个点，在那里他们可以进行务实和实际的讨论，关于经济对争议的影响。
解决过程作为人性的一部分显得明显；一种接受并超越在争议中不可避免地发生的感知或实际损失的方式。一些方可能试图缩短这个过程，但这肯定会导致非常快速和失败的调解。即使一方在解决路径上更远，无论是通过调解过程前的准备还是经验，另一方可能需要时间赶上。调解员必须促进耐心并坚持，允许各方进行自己的旅程走向协议区。
对于成功的调解，选择理解参与者经历的解决自然过程的调解员很重要。调解员将适当地使用其促进和评估技能，帮助各方达成解决。参与者，在其倡导者的帮助下，当动态过程通过耐心、坚持和努力被充分利用时，将成功达成解决。
文章概要
本文探讨了商业调解中的心理过程，强调参与者通常从“我是对的”心态开始，通过事实澄清、法律探讨和经济现实分析，逐步走向解决。文章以屋顶漏水争议为例，说明固执己见如何阻碍调解，并指出调解员需促进各方超越事实分歧，关注经济因素，最终达成协议。整个过程体现了耐心、坚持和有效沟通的重要性。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容
这篇文章讲的是当大人们在商业上吵架时，怎么通过调解来和好。一开始，每个人都觉得自己是对的，就像小朋友吵架时都说“我没做错”。然后，调解员会帮他们看清楚事实，比如用照片证明屋顶真的漏水了。接着，他们会讨论法律规则，就像学校里的规矩一样。最后，他们会算算钱，比如修屋顶要花多少钱，打官司又要花多少钱。调解员就像个和事佬，耐心地帮大家一步步从“我是对的”变成“我们一起解决吧”。
TA沟通分析心理学理论评价
从TA沟通分析心理学角度看，这篇文章生动展示了在商业调解中，参与者如何从“父母自我状态”或“儿童自我状态”过渡到“成人自我状态”。初始的“我是对的”心态常源于“父母自我状态”的批评性或“儿童自我状态”的情绪化反应，如受伤的自尊。调解过程通过事实澄清和法律分析，促进各方进入“成人自我状态”，进行理性、客观的思考。例如，当承包商固执己见时，其“儿童自我状态”的抗拒阻碍了进展；调解员的引导帮助激活“成人自我状态”，使各方能评估经济现实。这体现了TA理论中自我状态的动态转换，对解决冲突至关重要。
在实践上可以应用的领域和可以解决人们的十个问题
基于TA沟通分析心理学，本文内容可应用于职场冲突调解、家庭纠纷解决、团队协作优化、客户服务管理、教育环境调解、社区争议处理、商业谈判支持、法律咨询辅助、心理健康促进和组织发展指导。它可以解决人们的十个问题：1. 减少人际冲突中的情绪化反应；2. 提升理性决策能力；3. 改善沟通中的倾听与理解；4. 降低固执己见导致的僵局；5. 增强团队合作中的共识达成；6. 缓解压力下的对抗心态；7. 促进跨文化或跨部门协调；8. 支持个人成长中的自我反思；9. 优化争议解决效率；10. 培养长期和谐关系。