If you’re worried about which way the next election is going to go, then you might be worried about the wrong things.
Why?
Well, to get to that, we’re first going to look at a set of tactics that businesses have used to resolve disputes without going to court. Those tactics are broadly termed “alternative dispute resolution,” or ADR for short.
What Is ADR?
ADR consists of tactics that allow companies to solve business disputes without having to spend loads of time or resources on courtroom litigation. In other words, they are alternatives to suing.
Arbitration
One common method is arbitration. You might have seen arbitration clauses in contracts before. Those clauses basically say that rather than take a dispute to court, you’ll solve it with an arbitrator. The proceedings may look similar to those you’d find in a courtroom, with two sides presenting their cases before a neutral party who rules on who’s right and who has to pay. However, the rules on how those proceedings go—who talks when, how evidence is handled, etc.—are much more relaxed (at least in theory—more on that later).
Mediation
Mediation is another form of ADR, but instead of an arbitrator hearing each side and making a ruling, you instead have a mediator who facilitates a constructive discussion. They help guide the conversation toward those issues that are most important to resolving the conflict, but it’s ultimately up to the disputing parties to come to a solution. There’s a lot of flexibility here, and it has a lot of potential for developing mutually beneficial solutions to problems.
Both these methods tend to take less time and fewer dollars than litigation, but only when they’re done with the right approach.
ADR and Cooperation
Here’s the crux of the matter: ADR is only as effective as the disputing parties’ willingness to cooperate. If there’s no potential for compromise, then it will fail, often at the expense of both parties involved.
Back in 1994, the Harvard Business Review published an article titled “Alternative Dispute Resolution: Why It Doesn’t Work and Why It Does.” In this article, a few examples are discussed showing instances where ADR either failed or succeeded.
A glowing success story
In one example, a company had a high level of commitment to resolving disputes as inexpensively as possible. If a dispute came up, every effort was made to help both sides reach a mutually beneficial solution. They had a team of lawyers that wouldn’t look so much at how to win the dispute, but rather how to arrive at a solution that would spare both sides the time and expense of taking it to court.
They’d look at how the other party might see the issue. They’d analyze what facts were really pertinent to the dispute and use that analysis to structure the discussion. They’d come up with lists of potential solutions in advance. In short, they believed that resolving the dispute and preserving business relationships were more important than simply winning—even if they were in the right.
They did very well for themselves. The company managed to close more than 60% of all cases within a year’s time, and between 1984 and 1993, the amount they paid in outside legal fees had dropped by over half.
A glaring example of failure
On the other hand, we have the example of two disputing companies that quickly found themselves mired in a drawn-out dispute that ended up costing both millions. They used arbitration, but only in name—it had all the trappings of courtroom litigation, and with that, all the back-and-forth and all the expenses.
After some time, a judge ruled in favor of one of the companies, but they turned down that ruling and took the matter to court.
Where did they go wrong? It was in their determination to win at all costs. They were described as being driven by “fierce litigiousness, arrogance, and greed.”
With their “win-at-all-costs” mindset, neither side ever truly won. In the end, the cost to both was extraordinarily high.
But What Does This Have to Do With Us?
In the United States, we have a situation where there are two camps that are completely at odds with each other. Each side has its own narrative that is fully supported by verifiable facts along with (often biased) interpretations of those facts. People are not only being told about events, but also what they mean, how they impact people, why it’s bad, etc.
The end result is that we have two camps that each believe (often rightly) that the other camp has hurt people and will do so again. Both sides believe wholeheartedly that if the other party’s candidate gets into office, it will be a disaster.
And both sides are able to support that belief with verifiable facts.
Both sides believe they have to win at all costs. If the nature of ADR is any kind of analogue, then we can see the kind of problem that presents.
We already see it in the government. Both parties argue their causes, but refuse to give any ground. There is no negotiation. No compromise. No cooperation. Only a “win-at-all-costs” attitude where the cost is getting anything done that might help the people they’re supposed to serve.
The disaster I see coming is not what this or that candidate will do once in office. That’s not the core problem. The real disaster is where our refusal to see eye to eye will lead us.
Anger? Hatred? Division?
Delays in much-needed change?
Outright war?
If we persist in our “win at all costs” attitude—at all levels—the price we’d have to pay could prove far higher than anything we might fear from any individual in office.
So be nice to each other. And I don’t mean the “fake smile for the poor misguided fools over there” kind of nice.
I mean the real “see one another in the best possible light” kind of nice.
Thoughts? Questions? Outright condemnations? Let me know in the comments! Also, share this with literally everyone. Please. For all our sakes.