How do we measure success in mediation? Typically we assess party satisfaction. We look at three variables: procedural, psychological, and substantive satisfaction.
Procedural satisfaction results when a party considers the process is fair. On the other hand, when prejudice and bias impede the mediation or negotiation, parties experience dissatisfaction.
When process guidelines enable a party to present their interests in full, in their own words, they experience satisfaction. However, if the process favors one party over another or does not allow for full disclosure of party interests, dissatisfaction is the result.
The process must foster transparency and honesty if we are to achieve procedural satisfaction: satisfaction plummets if candid and frank discussions are not possible.
In addition, the more a party exerts self-determinism when it comes to decisions, the greater their satisfaction; the more significant their role is in deciding the outcome, the more satisfaction they experience.
Psychological satisfaction results primarily from being shown proper respect; when a party’s human dignity is honored they experience satisfaction. Dissatisfaction results when they are insulted, blamed, or ridiculed.
When a party is allowed to share their emotions, when their feelings are acknowledged, the result is psychological satisfaction. When the process is free from psychological violence, parties gain safety and hope, vital ingredients for success.
When parties avoid blaming each other—if they are able to attack the shared problem rather than each other—they find psychological satisfaction. While heated discussions may take place, if the focus is on the problem not on the people, parties can achieve satisfaction.
Substantive satisfaction results when the needs and interests of parties are fulfilled in the best possible manner given the circumstances. We do not always get everything we desire, but if we leave mediation or negotiation having achieved the greatest benefit possible for ourselves while also meeting the other party’s needs we find satisfaction.
When “the pie” is expanded to create optimum benefit for all—satisfaction occurs. Substantive satisfaction means a party is happy with the substance of the outcome—the tangibles or intangibles they receive meet their needs and the tangibles or intangibles they deliver meet the needs of the other party.
Most of the time we do not score one hundred percent on all three variables—however, satisfaction must be sufficiently high on all three legs of the triangle to insure the outcome is durable. If satisfaction on any of the variables is low the agreement is unlikely to endure.
For example, even when the substantive outcome satisfies our needs, if we were disrespected during the process we may return to conflict mode to procure the respect we feel is still owed. If, upon later reflection, we discover deception, unfairness, or mediator bias, the agreement may fall apart, there may be a lack of compliance to the terms.
Assessment of satisfaction can be applied to all types of mediation and negotiation to help us understand what went right and what went wrong. This also includes negotiations over health care legislation, the contentious situation covered in my previous post.
For example, when the legislative process includes back room deals that benefit individual parties to the exclusion of other stakeholders, the process is perceived as illegitimate, unfair.
When a privately brokered deal exempts one state from paying their Medicaid costs, leaving taxpayers from other states to pay those costs, the bias and corruption are obvious. The process is unjust; there can be no satisfaction.
Likewise, when a 40% tax is levied on “Cadillac” insurance plans but the members of a particular union are exempted from the surtax (as the result of a back room deal) procedural satisfaction is not possible.
If significant numbers of individuals are prohibited from taking part in policy discussions—if they are shown disrespect, called names, and their feelings or concerns are attacked—psychological satisfaction is sacrificed. When union members physically attack citizens who hold differing views, the public display of violence taints the process. Psychological satisfaction plummets.
When the legislation is not placed before the public and their representatives for an adequate period of time, allowing sufficient time for careful consideration and transparency, a message of disrespect is sent, lowering psychological satisfaction.
When the outcome does not represent a collaborative effort addressing the interests of all stakeholders, when stakeholders feel they have been excluded, satisfaction plummets. When we fail to employ a collaborative effort to find creative solutions that provide the greatest possible benefit to the greatest number of stakeholders, the outcome will not satisfy those who must later comply. When legislation includes coercive measures that frighten or offend a large segment of stakeholders, substantive satisfaction will be missing.
If we look closely at the satisfaction variables involved we discover we are essentially addressing the quality of relationship. Relationship forms the foundation on which each leg of the satisfaction triangle rests.
It is here—in the quality of relationship—we find St. Francis excelling as our mentor. When we live a Gospel life, we have a natural desire, born out of love, to treat our brothers and sisters fairly. We have a desire to conduct our dealings in a just manner. When a compassionate heart colors our embrace of others, we do not have a need to ridicule, demean, or coerce.
When we care about relationship we seek to collaborate as brothers and sisters—and we seek to make sure others needs are met along with our own. We avoid policy that relies on domination and coercion; instead we seek maximum liberty for all.
Today’s world does not need additional political partisans. Instead, there is a dire need for Franciscans to minister to relationships, to become mediators, to work as conciliators, to work as neutrals whose only loyalty is to Christ.
Francis understood the Gospel message of love; Franciscans who carry on his charism have the power to heal relationships. The “action network” that is needed is a network of love that heals divisions between brothers and sisters, divisions that doom attempts to legislate better conditions.
It may be time to step away from alliances with political bosses and istead take on the vital mission of delivering the Gospel message of love through the actions we take to heal and repair relationships. It may be time to leave politics behind and instead facilitate compassionate understanding that guarantees procedural, psychological, and substantive satisfaction.
Greg,
This is a terrific summary of negotiation satisfaction and a great application of its principles to the health care debate. Since I’ve re-engaged our old Pepperdine relationship, I’ve found that you and I are on different ends of the political spectrum. Yet on this commentary, I am in complete agreement (well, NEARLY complete). Because you and I, though our opinions differ, join at the heart. Will tweet this with recommendations that everyone in my network read it.
All best for the new year,
Vickie
Thanks, Vicki. It is encouraging to receive such comments from one of the top mediators in Southern California.
You have pointed out the key issue — it is all about heart. That is where we meet.
St. Francis faced similar concerns – his focus was on the divine within. He focused on bringing about improved relationships based on our being brothers and sisters to one another.
In the political realm we face challenging issues of how to create or maintain a system that best allows us to enter into heartfelt relationships with one another.
In the West we prize individualism so highly that we sometimes lose sight of our interdependence. We lose sight of what we owe one another as brothers and sisters.
On the other hand, if we focus too strongly on the collective we risk falling into the errors of collectivist regimes that have brought suffering to millions.
Francis struggled with issues of the individual and the group while forming and running a religious order. His admonitions teach us to eschew the need to dominate and coerce. He called the brothers “friars minor” – institutionalizing the idea of humility into the name.
It seems he was on the right path — pay attention first to how we treat one another in matters of the heart. Support those things that strengthen relationship; eschew those things that harm relationship.
Thanks, once again, for your kind comments. They mean a great deal.
I still say where the collectivist regimes really fail is that they bite off too big of a task: they try to bring enlightenment to millions, and only bring suffering to those millions.
I believe in communionism instead- bring enlightenment to our neighbors in communion with them. Keep it small. Keep it to people you can meet and actually have a relationship with.
Ultimately that’s the answer. Too band federalism nearly destroyed it in the United States.
When the process lacks fairness and reciprocity, stakeholder satisfaction plummets.
The discussion at this link – http://bit.ly/5Hl8jh – is an example of the lack of fairness that creates continuing conflict. It is an article describing how two people who pay the same for health insurance will be taxed differently under the current legislation. The unions, a special interest group, will not be taxed while other citizens will pay a tax on the same benefits.