ADRMediator

ADRMediator We have Taught Dept of Defense, IRS, US Dept of Justice, OSHA, US Dept of Education, We are the most notable Trainer of Mediator World-Wide.

17/06/2025

How to Negotiate Salary: 3 Winning Strategies
When considering how to negotiate salary, job candidates sometimes make decisions that go against their best interests.

Research suggests guidelines for effective salary negotiation.
By Katie Shonk — on June 17th, 2025 / Salary Negotiations
The question of how to negotiate salary seems to preoccupy negotiators more than any other negotiation topic—and with good reason, considering how dramatically even a small salary increase can impact our lifetime earnings. The following three salary bargaining tips from leading negotiation experts will help you gain more from your new-job negotiations.

Get Out of Your Own Way
In job and salary negotiations, we sometimes “get in our own way,” write Deborah M. Kolb and Jessica L. Porter in their book Negotiating at Work: Turn Small Wins Into Big Gains (Jossey-Bass, 2015). We may fail to recognize opportunities to negotiate, focus only on our weaknesses, and make the first concessions in our own heads before the negotiation even begins. These internal dialogues are where the first concessions in the negotiation are made, write Kolb and Porter.

Kolb and Porter suggest ways to address the question of how to negotiate salary. Begin by gathering information so that you will feel that what you are asking for is defensible. Prepare to explain the value you would bring to the organization. Develop alternatives to the current negotiation to increase your flexibility at the table, and remember that the other party’s alternatives may be less attractive than yours.

In addition, examine your vulnerabilities and plan ahead to compensate for them. For example, if you are insecure about a gap in your work history, think about the important things you were doing during that time and prepare to share them with enthusiasm.

Consider the Context
Large, established companies often measure job candidates against well-defined job categories with a set range of salaries. In addition, you may negotiate compensation with recruiters or human-resources personnel rather than with your future boss. In this environment, when determining how to negotiate salary, try to figure out what pay category someone with your education level and experience would receive, then build a case for a salary at the high end of that range.

If an interviewer asks you to name your price, do you know how should you respond? In their book 3-D Negotiation (Harvard Business School Press, 2006), David Lax and James Sebenius recommend making a “non-offer offer,” or a statement that could anchor the discussion in your favor without seeming extreme.

Suppose your research suggests that you would most likely fall into the $70,000 to $80,000 pay range, but the next-highest category seems within reach. Rather than saying, “I think I deserve $80,000,” consider saying, “Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve heard that people like me typically earn $80,000 to $90,000.” Notice that this statement is not a demand. Yet due to the powerful impact of the $80,000-to-$90,000 “anchor”—a reference point that may or may not be relevant to the discussion—it could very well steer the numbers toward your upper goal.

Now consider how you might adjust your salary negotiation strategy to a start-up that is recruiting you to become its third employee. You obviously won’t be shuttled off to the HR department, nor will your salary be determined by existing pay scales. In this case, you may have more latitude to structure a creative package that includes stock options.

Adapt Your Style for Maximum Success
Individual differences in negotiating style determine how to negotiate salary and what we achieve, Michelle Marks of George Mason University and Crystal Harold of Temple University found in a study published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior.

The researchers surveyed 149 professional employees who had been hired in the previous three years about their negotiations for their current position, including their attitudes toward negotiation and risk, their negotiation strategies and outcomes, and their level of satisfaction with the process of negotiating for their jobs.

The researchers identified five types of negotiating strategies: collaborating (engaging in problem solving to reach the best possible outcome for both sides); competing (trying to maximize one’s own outcomes with little concern for others); accommodating (putting the other party’s concerns first); compromising (trying to reach middle ground); and avoiding (dodging negotiation altogether).

Independent of the power the applicants had at the table, choice of negotiation strategy turned out to be the critical factor in determining effective salary negotiation. Those who chose to negotiate salary, rather than accepting the offer on the table, increased their starting pay by an average of $5,000, primarily by using competing and collaborating strategies. Those who behaved competitively did better than those who focused on collaboration, but collaborators were more satisfied than competitive bargainers with the negotiation process. By contrast, compromising and accommodating strategies were not linked to salary gains.

The study’s authors conclude that it pays to negotiate assertively for a salary increase. They also encourage employers to recognize that giving employees wiggle room to bargain up their starting pay could help create a more satisfied and productive workforce.

When determining how to negotiate salary, what strategies have you used?

19/03/2025

How to Counter a Job Offer: Avoid Common Mistakes
When considering how to counter a job offer, jobseekers risk making several serious mistakes. We overview three common missteps at the bargaining table and explain how to avoid them.
By Katie Shonk — on March 19th, 2025 / Salary Negotiations

Imagine that after a long search, you’ve just gotten an offer for a highly appealing job. You’re tempted to accept it on the spot. At the same time, the job offer isn’t a perfect fit: the salary and a couple of other issues fall somewhat short of what you had hoped for. What should you do? Here’s a closer look at how to counter a job offer.

Mistake No. 1: Rushing to “Yes”
Many people understand that negotiating a job offer can make a big difference in their career, not just in the immediate future but for years to come. When you negotiate successfully for a higher salary, for example, you can expect to earn exponentially more over the course of your working life than you would earn if you didn’t negotiate. Similarly, negotiating for more responsibility or a coveted job title right off the bat can point your career in the right direction.

But when weighing how to counter a job offer, many negotiators are confused about when to negotiate for more. Specifically, people often think they should accept the offer on the table and only then negotiate. They worry that if they don’t accept the offer right away, the employer will assume they aren’t interested and give the job to someone else.

Typically, that’s not the case: Employers expect us to take a little time to think over their offer and perhaps talk it over with loved ones. Besides, quickly accepting an offer isn’t wise from a negotiation standpoint. Once you’ve made it clear you’ll take what they’re offering, you lose negotiating leverage and decrease your odds of getting more.

So, when you receive an offer, express your excitement and gratitude. Then ask for a little time to think. A day or two may be sufficient, unless you have more complex arrangements to juggle, such as one or more other offers, a cross-country move, or your partner’s own job search. Give yourself time to plan your strategy.

Mistake No. 2: Focusing Exclusively on Salary
The size of our paycheck has a dramatic impact on our lives, so it’s not surprising that most jobseekers tend to home in on salary when considering how to counter a job offer. Salary also tends to be the most vivid and straightforward issue to confront in job negotiations.

But negotiating exclusively, or even primarily, on salary is usually a mistake. Instead, you want to keep a bigger goal at the forefront: setting yourself up for long-term career success. After receiving a job offer, consider where you would like to be five, 10, or even 20 years from now. “The job you’re applying for isn’t your final job,” says David Lax, coauthor with James Sebenius of the book 3D Negotiation. “Rather, it’s setting you up for the next job.”

Recognizing this allows you to look for opportunities to build the expertise and experience you will need in your next job and the one after that. Then you can negotiate for the tools you need to grow and thrive, such as a strong support staff or a title that will set you up for a future position. Ideally, you will have engaged in this type of forward thinking throughout your job search, but it’s not too late to plan ahead after you have an offer in hand.

Employers generally should be indifferent about spending their money on your salary or on benefits you might value more. If further schooling would enhance your job skills, the employer might be willing to pay your tuition with pretax dollars at a lower cost than you would pay out of pocket.

In sum, when evaluating a job offer, be sure to consider the big picture. You can and often should negotiate for a higher salary, of course, but other issues may be even more important to your long-term goals and earnings.

Mistake No. 3: Not Justifying Your Counteroffer
The first party to make an offer in a job negotiation—typically the employer—anchors the discussion that follows in their favor. So, when considering how to make a counteroffer, keep in mind that you will need to present a compelling justification for changes to the employer’s offer.

“Never let your proposal speak for itself—always tell the story that goes with it,” advises Harvard Business School professor Deepak Malhotra in Harvard Business Review. If you want to negotiate to work remotely one day a week, for example, prepare to say why—such as, “My kids come home early from school on Fridays.”

And if you plan to ask for a higher salary, be sure you have relevant benchmarks to back up your request, such as information from recruiters, industry insiders, or an online job site such as Glassdoor. Any employer worth working for will want to do their best to accommodate reasonable requests, so make your request as compelling and easy to fulfill as possible.

12/02/2025

Conflict-Management Styles: Pitfalls and Best Practices
Conflict-management styles can affect how disputes play out in organizations and beyond. Research on conflict-management styles offers advice on managing such difficult situations.
By Katie Shonk — on February 12th, 2025 / Conflict Resolution

People approach conflict differently, depending on their innate tendencies, their life experiences, and the demands of the moment. Negotiation and conflict-management research reveals how our differing conflict-management styles mesh with best practices in conflict resolution.

A Model of Conflict-Management Styles
In 1974, Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann introduced a questionnaire, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, designed to measure people’s conflict styles. Based on people’s responses to pairs of statements, the instrument categorizes respondents into five different conflict styles:

Competing. When adopting a competing style, people view interpersonal conflict resolution as win-lose games. Rather than recognizing the value of ensuring that each party walks away satisfied, disputants focus narrowly on claiming as much as they can for themselves. While value claiming is an important component of negotiation, a single-minded competitive orientation sacrifices value in the long run and perpetuates conflict.
Avoiding. Because dealing with conflict directly can be highly uncomfortable, many of us prefer to avoid it. An avoidant conflict style might at first appear to be the opposite of a competitive style, but in fact, it can be similarly obstructive. When we avoid conflict, we often allow problems to grow worse.

Accommodating. Because they defer so often to others, negotiators who adopt an accommodating style can seem agreeable and easygoing. But when people consistently put others’ needs first, they are liable to experience resentment that builds up over time. Accommodating negotiators typically will benefit from learning to express their needs and concerns.

Compromising. Sometimes we try to resolve conflict by proposing seemingly equal compromises, such as meeting in the middle between two extreme positions, or by making a significant compromise just to move forward. Although a compromising conflict style can move a conversation forward, the solution is often unsatisfying and temporary because it doesn’t address the root issues at stake.

Collaborating. Those who adopt a collaborative conflict-resolution style work to understand the deeper needs behind other parties’ demands and to express their own needs. They see value in working through strong emotions that come up, and they propose tradeoffs across issues that will give each side more of what they want.

A collaborative negotiation style is usually the most effective style for managing conflict and fostering productive long-term relationships; however, different conflict-management styles can be effectively applied to different phases and types of conflict in management. Moreover, though we may have a predisposition toward a particular conflict style, we adopt different styles depending on the situation.

Competing is often useful when you’ve jointly created value through collaboration and now need to divide up resources. Accommodating may be the best immediate choice when your boss is unhappy about a project that went awry. Avoiding can be wise when someone seems volatile or when we don’t expect to deal with them again. And compromising can be a fine way of resolving a minor issue quickly.

Conflict-Management Styles: Lessons from Marriage Research
Can people with different conflict-management styles get along? In his book Why Marriages Succeed or Fail . . . and How You Can Make Yours Last (Simon & Schuster, 1995), psychologist John Gottman writes that healthy marriages tend to settle into three different styles of problem solving: validating (compromising often and working out problems to mutual satisfaction), conflict-avoidant (agreeing to disagree and rarely confronting differences directly), and volatile (frequently engaging in passionate disputes).

Perhaps surprisingly, Gottman’s research suggests that “all three styles are equally stable and bode equally well for the marriage’s future,” as he writes. Which style a couple leans toward isn’t important; what’s more important for lasting satisfaction is that both spouses adopt the same style.

Though Gottman’s research was conducted on married couples, the results suggest that disputants in the business world who have similar conflict-management styles may find they feel comfortable managing (or avoiding) conflict with each other.

When Conflict-Management Styles Are Complementary
By contrast, in the realm of negotiation, the results of a 2015 study published in the journal Negotiation and Conflict Management Research by Scott Wiltermuth, Larissa Z. Tiedens, and Margaret Neale found benefits when pairs of participants used one of two different negotiating styles.

They assigned study participants to engage in a negotiation simulation using either a dominant or submissive negotiating style. Those assigned to be dominant were told to express their preferences with confidence, use expansive body postures, and otherwise try to influence their counterpart. Those assigned to the submissive style were told to be cooperative, agreeable, and conflict avoidant.

Interestingly, pairs in which one party behaved dominantly and the other submissively achieved better results in the negotiation than pairs who were in the same condition (whether dominance, submission, or a control group). It seems the pairs of dominant/submissive negotiators benefited from their complementary communication style. A pattern in which one person stated her preferences directly and the other asked questions enabled the negotiators to claim the most value. By asking questions, the submissive negotiators assessed how to meet their own goals—and helped their dominant counterparts feel respected and competent in the process.

The research we’ve covered on negotiation and conflict-management styles suggests that opportunities to work through differences abound, regardless of our natural tendencies. Rather than spending a lot of time diagnosing each other’s conflict-management styles, strive for open collaboration that confronts difficult emotions and encourages joint problem solving.

09/02/2025

Vet’s banquet to honor injured vet raising money for motorcycles for vets

06/02/2025

Types of Mediation: Choose the Type Best Suited to Your Conflict
Various types of mediation are available to disputants who are seeking an efficient and relatively low-cost resolution to their conflict. Which one should you choose?
By Katie Shonk — on February 6th, 2025 / Mediation

When parties involved in a serious conflict want to avoid a court battle, there are types of mediation can be an effective alternative. In mediation, a trained mediator tries to help the parties find common ground using principles of collaborative, mutual-gains negotiation. We tend to think mediation processes are all alike, but in fact, mediators follow different approaches depending on the type of conflict they are dealing with. Before choosing a mediator, consider the various styles and types of mediation that are available to help resolve conflict.

7 Types of Mediation
Facilitative Mediation

In facilitative mediation or traditional mediation, a professional mediator attempts to facilitate negotiation between the parties in conflict. Rather than making recommendations or imposing a decision, the mediator encourages disputants to reach their own voluntary solution by exploring each other’s deeper interests. In facilitative mediation, mediators tend to keep their own views regarding the conflict hidden.

Court-Mandated Mediation

Although mediation is typically defined as a completely voluntary process, it can be mandated by a court that is interested in promoting a speedy and cost-efficient settlement. When parties and their attorneys are reluctant to engage in mediation, their odds of settling through court-mandated mediation are low, as they may just be going through the motions. But when parties on both sides see the benefits of engaging in the process, settlement rates are much higher.

Evaluative Mediation

Standing in direct contrast to facilitative mediation is evaluative mediation, a type of mediation in which mediators are more likely to make recommendations and suggestions and to express opinions. Instead of focusing primarily on the underlying interests of the parties involved, evaluative mediators may be more likely to help parties assess the legal merits of their arguments and make fairness determinations. Evaluative mediation is most often used in court-mandated mediation, and evaluative mediators are often attorneys who have legal expertise in the area of the dispute.

Transformative Mediation

In transformative mediation, mediators focus on empowering disputants to resolve their conflict and encouraging them to recognize each other’s needs and interests. First described by Robert A. Baruch Bush and Joseph P. Folger in their 1994 book The Promise of Mediation, transformative mediation is rooted in the tradition of facilitative mediation. At its most ambitious, the process aims to transform the parties and their relationship through the process of acquiring the skills they need to make constructive change.

Med-Arb

In med-arb, a mediation-arbitration hybrid, parties first reach agreement on the terms of the process itself. Unlike in most mediations, they typically agree in writing that the outcome of the process will be binding. Next, they attempt to negotiate a resolution to their dispute with the help of a mediator.

If the mediation ends in an impasse, or if issues remain unresolved, the process isn’t over. At this point, parties can move on to arbitration. The mediator can assume the role of arbitrator (if he or she is qualified to do so) and render a binding decision quickly based on her judgments, either on the case as a whole or on the unresolved issues. Alternatively, an arbitrator can take over the case after consulting with the mediator.

Arb-Med

In arb-med, another among the types of mediation, a trained, neutral third party hears disputants’ evidence and testimony in an arbitration; writes an award but keeps it from the parties; attempts to mediate the parties’ dispute; and unseals and issues her previously determined binding award if the parties fail to reach agreement, writes Richard Fullerton in an article in the Dispute Resolution Journal.

The process removes the concern in med-arb about the misuse of confidential information, but keeps the pressure on parties to reach an agreement, notes Fullerton. Notably, however, the arbitrator/mediator cannot change her previous award based on new insights gained during the mediation.

E-mediation

In e-mediation, a mediator provides mediation services to parties who are located at a distance from one another, or whose conflict is so strong they can’t stand to be in the same room, write Jennifer Parlamis, Noam Ebner, and Lorianne Mitchell in a chapter in the book Advancing Workplace Mediation Through Integration of Theory and Practice.

E-mediation can be a completely automated online dispute resolution system with no interaction from a third party at all. But e-mediation is more likely to resemble traditional facilitative mediation, delivered at a distance, write the chapter’s authors. Thanks to video conferencing services such as Skype and Google Hangouts, parties can now easily and cheaply communicate with one another in real time, while also benefiting from visual and vocal cues. Early research results suggest that technology-enhanced mediation can be just as effective as traditional meditation techniques. Moreover, parties often find it to be a low-stress process that fosters trust and positive emotions.

03/02/2025

Body Language in Negotiation
Body language in negotiation—including eye contact, gestures, and facial expressions—can go a long way toward forging trust and lasting business partnerships.
By PON Staff — on February 3rd, 2025 / Negotiation Skills

Nonverbal behavior, such as eye contact, gestures, and facial expressions, can be useful in breaking down barriers between people and establishing rapport. Somewhat surprisingly, little research has examined body language in negotiation, write Jeff Thompson, Noam Ebner, and Jeff Giddings in The Negotiator’s Desk Reference. But scattered results and anecdotal evidence suggest that certain nonverbal behaviors can go a long way toward establishing a connection with new counterparts and repairing relationships that have gone offtrack. Let’s take a closer look at how body language affects negotiation.
Eye Contact: A Vanishing Art?

Eye contact is a common tool for building a connection with someone. Unfortunately, it’s an underused form of nonverbal communication in negotiation. Ideally, we should be making eye contact for 60% to 70% of conversation time, according to research by communications-analytics company Quantified Communications. But most adults hold eye contact only 30% to 60% of the time, the company found in an analysis of 3,000 speakers. Our compulsive need to check our smartphones, along with the rise in remote work, may help to explain this eye-contact deficit, writes Sue Shellenbarger in the Wall Street Journal.

When we avert our eyes from a negotiating counterpart, we risk seeming disinterested, nervous, or unprepared. By contrast, meeting their gaze conveys that we’re fully engaged. Combining eye contact with other nonverbal signals of active listening, including nods, appropriate facial expressions, laughter, and leaning forward, can encourage counterparts to keep sharing—and give us valuable information about their interests and priorities.

How much eye contact is enough? Holding someone’s gaze for 7 to 10 seconds at a time is ideal in one-on-one conversations, communications trainer Ben Decker told the Journal. Staring at someone for longer than that can seem aggressive or just plain creepy, he added.

Status and Body Language in Negotiation

Nonverbal communication in negotiation and beyond can also help us navigate status differences. In his book Face to Face: The Art of Human Connection, film and television producer Brian Grazer described chatting with then-President George W. Bush at a White House reception in 2005. During their conversation, Bush kept repositioning himself to be next to Grazer rather than facing him. Grazer concluded that the president—who maintained eye contact by turning his head—chose to stand next to him, rather than face-to-face, “to connect in a more egalitarian way, even though he was the president.”

Getting “in sync” with a negotiating counterpart physically is bound to bridge status gaps and promote understanding. When people are deeply engaged in conversation and like each other, they often end up mimicking and mirroring each other’s behavior—propping their chins on their hands, for example, or copying each other’s tone of voice. By contrast, deliberately maintaining your physical space (as by sitting behind a desk) and making an effort not to mimic the other person’s gestures is likely to underscore status distinctions—and could also hinder rapport building.

Our demeanor and appearance, including our clothing choices, also send potent status signals. In 2019, the Chicago Cubs Major League Baseball (MLB) team began holding interviews for the newly opened position of team manager. When bystanders snapped photos days apart of two top candidates exiting their interviews, Cubs fans jumped at the chance to play armchair experts on body language and negotiation.

First up was former MLB player and New York Yankees manager Joe Girardi. Clad in a suit and pulling a roller briefcase after his eight-hour interview, Girardi looked drained and tense outside the Cubs’ front office next to team president Theo Epstein and general manager Jed Hoyer, who wore dress shirts but not suits.

Next up was David “Grandpa Rossy” Ross—a beloved former Cubs catcher who helped lead the team to its momentous 2016 World Series victory. During a break in his four-hour interview, a grinning Ross, wearing a zip-up sweater and Cubby-blue sunglasses on his forehead, ambled to and from Starbucks with Epstein and Hoyer, who were also dressed casually.

Which candidate got the job? That’s right: Ross.

The Limits of Body Language in Negotiation

In Face to Face, Grazer describes his habit of arranging sit-downs with people from all walks of life who interest him. He enters these “curiosity conversations” with no practical agenda but simply a desire to learn something new and perhaps spark an ongoing dialogue.

His quixotic attempt to hold a curiosity conversation with Vladimir Putin eventually landed him in the Kremlin office of the Russian president’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov. To Grazer’s chagrin, it became clear that he had gotten his foot in the door only because an intermediary had falsely suggested Grazer wanted to make a celebratory film about Putin. When Grazer explained that wasn’t the case and he simply wanted to have an agenda-less conversation with Putin, Peskov abruptly ended the meeting. “Our desires were completely incompatible, mutually exclusive, really, and no amount of eye contact or persuasion was going to change that,” Grazer concludes.

We’ve seen numerous examples of the importance of body language in negotiation. But as this story illustrates, body language in negotiation will be useless if there is no zone of possible agreement between you and your counterpart.

29/01/2025

Alternative Dispute Resolution Examples: Restorative Justice
Alternative dispute resolution examples can go beyond negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. A recent high-profile attempt to resolve a criminal case through restorative justice was criticized for its lack of rigor and potential bias.
By Katie Shonk — on January 28th, 2025 / Dispute Resolution

Alternative dispute resolution examples often highlight relatively cheap, quick, and efficient alternatives to litigation, such as mediation. Within the criminal justice system, cases increasingly are being resolved through a form of alternative dispute resolution called restorative justice. A news story has prompted discussion of how restorative justice is defined—and how it can be implemented fairly.

An Arresting Video
In May 25, 2020, a video went viral of a white woman, Amy Cooper, arguing with a Black man, Christian Cooper (no relation), in New York City’s Central Park and then calling the police on him. Christian had asked Amy to follow park rules and leash her dog. She refused, and when Christian offered her dog a treat, called 911. Saying Christian was threatening her and her dog, she asked for the police to come. By the time the police arrived, the two had left. Amy was pilloried on social media for falsely accusing a Black man and potentially endangering him. She was charged with filing a false police report, a criminal misdemeanor.

Christian Cooper chose not to aid the investigation into Amy Cooper, writing in a Washington Post op-ed that Amy had already “lost her job and her reputation” as a result of her behavior. He suggested a fair outcome might be for her to be “found guilty and sentenced to anti-bias training and some form of community service.”

What Is Restorative Justice?
The final outcome was even less severe: On February 16, 2021, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office dismissed its case against Amy Cooper after she “participated in five therapy sessions that focused in part on how racial identities shape people’s lives,” according to the New York Times.

According to the prosecutor, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, the goal of the “alternative, restorative justice resolution” was “not just to punish but to educate and promote community healing.” She said that Cooper’s therapist said the sessions were “a moving experience” and that Cooper had “learned a lot.”

Cooper’s lawyer was pleased with the resolution but threatened that “others” who “rushed to the wrong conclusion . . . may yet face legal consequences,” according to the Times.

Some experts say that the legal dispute resolution of Cooper’s case fell well short of restorative justice. “I can say with certainty that the five therapy sessions described in the media are not restorative justice by any definition,” Restorative Justice Initiative founder Mika Dashman told Gothamist. Restorative justice “invites everyone impacted by conflict and/or harm to develop a shared understanding of both the root causes and the effects,” Dashman explained.

The decision to close Amy Cooper’s case without community engagement “reeks of unfairness,” Shailly Agnihotri, a former prosecutor and public defender who now runs the Restorative Justice Center of Newburgh, NY, told Gothamist. So-called diversion programs like the therapy offered to Amy Cooper increase perceptions in communities of color that privileged white offenders are unfairly and disproportionately given light sentences, according to Agnihotri.

A spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney subsequently conceded that Amy Cooper’s therapy sessions “may not have been a Restorative Justice session in the traditional sense” but rather qualified as a “restorative resolution, which focused on addressing and confronting racial bias.”

A Quest for Accountability
Confusion about what constitutes restorative justice, distinct from other methods of dispute resolution, arises in part because “restorative justice doesn’t come with a universal blueprint,” writes South Carolina Restorative Justice Initiative executive director and founder Aparna Polavarapu in an NBC News article. Whether the accused, those they have harmed, and community stakeholders are involved varies across dispute resolution examples. “The common thread . . . is the importance of arriving at accountability,” according to Polavarapu.

For Amy Cooper, taking accountability would include acknowledging how her actions had affected Christian Cooper, “contextualizing her actions in light of our nation’s systemic racism, making reparation and taking steps to adjust her mindset and future behavior,” writes Polavarapu. Such accountability seems unlikely to have been met in Cooper’s case, Polavarapu concludes: “It is hard to believe that five therapy sessions would be enough to unpack what is probably a lifetime of social conditioning that culminated in this act.”

Polavarapu agrees that a “nonpunitive approach prioritizing accountability” would probably have been the best method for spurring “actual positive change in [Amy] Cooper.” But the fact that Cooper’s lawyer threatened legal action after her misdemeanor case was resolved casts doubt on whether that positive change has occurred.

Polavarapu concludes: “We should be asking: Why doesn’t this program do enough? How can we make it better? How can we help Cooper hold herself accountable?”

Address


Opening Hours

Monday 08:00 - 17:00
Tuesday 08:00 - 17:00
Wednesday 08:00 - 17:00
Thursday 08:00 - 17:00
Friday 08:00 - 17:00

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when ADRMediator posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to ADRMediator:

Shortcuts

  • Address
  • Opening Hours
  • Alerts
  • Contact The Practice
  • Claim ownership or report listing

  • Want your practice to be the top-listed Clinic?

Share