Merepeka Raukawa-Tait: Talking it out not weak

At the end of my study tour of the United States, I was invited to take part in a week's training in Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution (ADR) in Portland, Oregon.

I had never heard of this methodology before so jumped at the chance. I joined with 20 people, from various states, and had one of the most rewarding training experiences in my life. Apart from me, all the participants were corporate attorneys. There were a few judges as well. They were sharp, articulate and committed to looking at ways to change the litigious culture that was their normal work environment.

I felt very privileged to be included. We were told the "see you in court" closing remark thrown across the negotiation table, when parties couldn't reach a settlement, was proving counter-productive to many settlement cases. Suing was costly. For all parties. Although someone would come out the winner, there was often little lasting satisfaction with the result. Research was produced showing that on numerous occasions the conditions under which the settlement was reached were not honoured. This then occasioned more court action.

The comprehensive training identified ways for disputes to be settled as soon as possible. This was constantly hammered home to us. Get in early and take action when issues or problems first arise. Usually parties are still willing to talk to each other at this stage. Once things start to drag on, this is when toes dig in. The case studies we looked at, where early action was taken, showed those settlements were far less costly to all parties and, in some situations, a few had been able to redeem and mend damaged business relations.

We looked at when it was more appropriate to use negotiation, rather than mediation and arbitration. Negotiation appeared to win out more often. I never realised what a difference each method could make to a desired settlement outcome. It can make all the difference. And knowing which one to employ was the crux of the training.

I was surprised that American attorneys would be favouring Alternative Forms of Dispute Resolution. I always thought it worked in their favour to prolong and draw out proceedings. What a cynical view.

These competent and highly skilled attorneys knew that the best outcome for their clients was when no one walked away wounded. That all parties need to feel they have been heard. I also felt they had had enough of the adversarial approach they were accustomed to in their courtrooms. As corporate attorneys, their jobs were stressful. The Stress Audit session showed most of them had some of the these: tension headaches, migraines, fatigue, backaches, sleep disturbances, ulcers, elevated blood pressure and heart attacks. They must have really loved their work to even think of continuing when those conditions could be a by-product of the job.

Over the years, I have tried to use the skills I learned in Portland in my various roles. I now believe that dispute resolution training should be mandatory for all senior managers.

Deciding to get around the table and to start talking is not a sign of weakness or admitting liability. What it does is show that you care enough for a result and that you will work to attain it. I have seen the results of protracted negotiations here in New Zealand. Businesses and individual lives can be destroyed. Sadly, this happens within family situations too.

Alternative forms of Dispute Resolution is not a "one size fits all" for difficult and taxing problems that need to be negotiated and settled. It is merely another tool to consider using. We have this training now in New Zealand. How many take it up is another matter.