In recent posts I have taken up the importance of achieving satisfaction in the conflict resolution process. A mediator facilitates a process the parties consider fair and just; he encourages candor and respect between parties; and he fosters a collaborative approach to satisfying party interests. Nonetheless, flawed decision-making may sabotage the outcome. When decision-making suffers from common errors we are likely to encounter impasse.
In Taming the Wolf I address common challenges in decision-making that inhibit a party’s ability to satisfy their interests, and I explore the types of bias and faulty reasoning that may impinge on the process. Recently I came across another source that takes up these issues. (Thanks to Facebook.)
I was pleased to discover an excellent article that describes common flaws that derail decision-making. The article titled “Decisional Errors: Why We Make Them and How to Address Them” was written by attorney, mediator and former Straus Institute classmate Don Philbin for the Dispute Resolution Journal of the American Arbitration Association.
After describing common decision-making errors, Don argues that alternative dispute resolution processes can help overcome decision-making error. “Conflict is inevitable. But the ways in which we manage it are evolving rapidly.” And, “Fortunately there are now many forums for different fusses.” In mediation, for example, the parties and the mediator spend time analyzing decisions, actively seeking to root out bias and error that might compromise the outcome.
In addition to debugging the decision-making process at a personal level, one can analyze the decision-making process used in health care legislation, which has been addressed in recent posts. Are the legislative processes being used to push health care reform exacerbating the errors described in “Decisional Errors” and Taming the Wolf? Have politicians and special interests manipulated information in ways that intentionally sabotage sound decision-making? What tactics might be used to induce the public to make decisions that work against their best interests? What might we do to eliminate bias and faulty reasoning and improve the process?