Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reaction Paper Part 3
Reaction Paper Part 3
The research provides that the ten neuro-commandments suggest that the type of process
that is used is likely to have a huge effect on the outcome. The Conflict Escalation Theory is
considered a vital element to take into account when designing ADR processes because such
concept is of great help in identifying where the conflict currently stands, and its propensity to
escalate further or to de-escalate. Glasl’s 9 step scale suggests that there are three possible zones
in which the parties may wish to resolve a conflict: a “win-win zone” where the parties can work
cooperatively, a “win-lose” zone, in which there can be a winner and a loser in a conventional
ADR process, and a “lose-lose” zone where the parties may be stuck and may feel that they need
a third party neutral to simply come in and decide the situation for them. Once the stage of the
conflict has been identified through Glas’s escalation model, this will allow the parties to have an
idea of their current position and which area of the scale they would like to resolve the dispute.
This simple act of identifying the position of the parties in the scale may lead to a greater
awareness of the steps to avoid if one party wants to prevent a problem form escalating out of
control. We think that the scale is very helpful in analysing conflicts from a neurobiological
perspective and when thinking of appropriate procedural interventions.
It is possible to see from the illustration of the Glasl’s escalation scales how the nine
steps corresponds to the “ten neuro-commandments”, and to understand how each of the ten
social and behavioural drivers can be affected by procedural interventions as the conflict
escalates. At this stage, it is important to realise the how the presence of an evaluative or non-
evaluative neutral (a mediator, conciliator or arbitrator) can make a big difference. We found out
that mediation can be effective for de-escalating the conflict at any stage while arbitration can be
effective for managing late stage conflicts. It is vital for these neutrals to realize the potential
impact of their additional presence, and to adapt themselves and their social behaviour to build
upon pre-existing cooperative and “in group” behavioural reflexes. Also, we also learned that it
is important for the neutral not to act evaluatively and not to assert a high sense of status for they
can also be treated as a threat.
We are surprised that many issues are raised in ADR and process design when considered
from a neurobiological perspective. We have learned that neurobiology would suggest that we
are all highly inter-dependent, that we automatically seek status, expect recognition of our
perception of self-deemed status, and require positive relations with others. We appreciate how
the research discussed the purpose of understanding the different alternatives to provide a
reference point with respect to time, costs, possible outcomes and likely consequences if no
agreement is reached, and to see if the parties can work cooperatively to generate better
outcomes. Even though our knowledge of neurobiology is incomplete, fortunately, simple tools,
as discussed in the research paper, already exist that can be used to help in conflict resolution
which do not require scientific understanding or accuracy, but can help to trigger awareness of
neurobiological influences that may be driving the process and can be used by neutrals to shape
ADR processes.