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.

10/23/2025

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 October 23rd, 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.

10/15/2025

Six Guidelines for “Getting to Yes”
These six integrative negotiation skills can help you on your journey of getting to yes.
By Katie Shonk — on October 15th, 2025 / Negotiation Skills

In their revolutionary book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (Penguin, 3rd edition, 2011), Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton introduced the world to the possibilities of mutual-gains negotiation, or integrative negotiation. The authors of Getting to Yes explained that negotiators don’t have to choose between either waging a strictly competitive, win-lose negotiation battle or caving in to avoid conflict.

Rather, they argued, bargainers can and should look for negotiation strategies that can help both sides get more of what they want. By listening closely to each other, treating each other fairly, and jointly exploring options to increase value, negotiators can find ways of getting to yes that reduce the need to rely on hard-bargaining tactics and unnecessary concessions.

1. Separate the people from the problem.

In negotiation, it’s easy to forget that our counterparts have feelings, opinions, values, and unique backgrounds that contribute to what they do and say during talks. When misunderstandings and conflict arise in negotiation, we need to deal with the “people problem” directly rather than trying to gloss over it with concessions, according to the authors of Getting to Yes. Strive to imagine the situation from their counterpart’s viewpoint. If someone is refusing to back down from a hardline position, ask her how she thinks things are going. Exploring each side’s perceptions openly and avoiding the tendency to blame are key negotiation skills.

2. Focus on interests, not positions.

We tend to begin our negotiation by stating our positions. A homeowner might say to a developer, for instance, “I won’t allow you to develop this property.” When we stake out firm positions, we set ourselves up for impasse. In our goal of getting to yes, we need to draw out the interests underlying our counterpart’s positions by asking questions, such as, “Why is this property important to you?” By identifying what interests are motivating the other party, and sharing your own interests, you can open up opportunities to explore tradeoffs across issues and increase your odds of getting to yes.

3. Learn to manage emotions.

Be sure that you and your counterpart have ample opportunities to express and discuss any strong emotions related to your negotiation. Allowing one another to speak your mind will benefit both sides. “Freed from the burden of unexpressed emotions,” write the authors in Getting to Yes, “people will become more likely to work on the problem.” They tell the story of a labor-management group that “adopted the rule that only one person could get angry at a time,” a tactic that prevented arguments from escalating. When you know that you will have your turn to express how you’re feeling, it will be easier for you to listen when your counterpart has his turn.

4. Express appreciation.

Throughout his career at the vanguard of integrative negotiation, Fisher stressed the importance of expressing appreciation as a means of breaking through impasse. “No one likes to feel unappreciated, and this is particularly true in a negotiation,” Fisher once told Program on Negotiation managing director Susan Hackley. In their book Beyond Reason (Penguin, 2005), Fisher and Dan Shapiro advised negotiators to express appreciation by working to understand the other’s perspective, seeking merit in that perspective, and communicating understanding through words and actions—all critical negotiation skills.

5. Put a positive spin on your message.

Communicating in a positive way is a much more effective means of getting to yes than blaming and criticizing. Instead of speaking on behalf of your group, speak only for yourself. For example, saying “Everyone on the team feels that you’re not pulling your weight” to an employee is likely to distract her from your message, as she will wonder who has been talking about her and what they’ve said. Instead, talk about what you personally have observed and express your concern: “Your recent work has fallen short of your high performance levels. Is there anything going on that is keeping you from doing your best?”

6. Escape the cycle of action and reaction.

In Getting to Yes, Fisher, Ury, and Patton caution us to avoid the common negotiation trap of action and reaction: “If the other side announces a firm position, you may be tempted to criticize and reject it. If they criticize your proposal, you may be tempted to defend it and dig yourself in . . . if they push you hard, you will tend to push back.” To head off this vicious cycle, Fisher, Ury, and Patton introduce a negotiation skill they call negotiation jujitsu, which involves avoiding escalation by refusing to react. Instead, they advise us to channel our resistance into more productive negotiation strategies, such as “exploring interests, inventing options for mutual gain, and searching for independent standards.”

06/17/2025

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?

03/19/2025

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.

02/12/2025

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.

02/09/2025

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

02/06/2025

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.

Address

5718 Westheimer Road, #1425
Houston, TX
77057

Opening Hours

Monday 8am - 5pm
Tuesday 8am - 5pm
Wednesday 8am - 5pm
Thursday 8am - 5pm
Friday 8am - 5pm

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.

Shortcuts

Featured

Share

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share via Email
Share on WhatsApp Share on Instagram Share on Telegram

Category