Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jo Irvine on February 16, 2011 at 11:53am

I've thought about this Jeff, and despite my lastest post replying to Jason on details and context - and the fact that Jason also says that he is reluctant to blame it on a process that requires a mind shift from combat to collaboration, I think that this mind shift is just as an important factor take into consideration. I don't think it's just about the law of the few and the stickiness factor - because mediation is not just a simple product like hushpuppies shoes. It's a much more complex 'product' that implies trust, risks and opening up your mind to someone or something that you have spent a lot of energy battling against previously. It may also be plagued by the misconception that all mediators come from the legal system as John pointed out.

 

Buying a pair of hushpuppies doesn't involve a third party, and most people, in their affairs, do not like an outsider poking around. Expressions like 'three's a crowd' and 'too many cooks spoil the broth' make me think that, in order for someone to want a third party to intervene in a conflict, they have to be pyschologically prepared to allow this to happen - and for most of us it goes against our nature. Why should I pay someone else when I can do it myself? And, why should I trust a third party? Perhaps the stickiness factor should be applied when trying to 'retain' clients and keep them coming back. Getting whole new ones may need a different approach. The clients already obtained are probably more open minded, possibly more willing to compromise, able to appreciate and accept outside help...to me this doesn't sound like the average person. In this sense, it is a mindset - a mindset that is open to the idea of mediation. Can we find a way to target this kind people as possible clients or can we find a way that changes the mindsets of poeple that are the opposite and through what? advertising? awareness? yes, mediation for a mediator pays the bills but it also strives to help people - in this sense, as unavoidable it is to need to sell this product, mediation is much more than the latest fashion trend.

 

I am not saying that context and stickiness is not important, but that we can't ignore people's mindsets in order to sell this particular product.

 

Permalink Reply by Barry Clemson on February 17, 2011 at 9:33am

Jo's comment is exactly right.

 

The whole concept of stickiness applies to what happens when people are ready for something and are then exposed to a catchy way of stating it.The notion of stickiness simply doesn't apply to the situation where a mindset has to change or something substantially new has to be learned.

 

I struggled with this in several different contexts. First in teaching systems theory / cybernetics: despite what seemed to be overwhelming advantages in understanding complex systems, folks with a newtonian/mechanistic mindset simply couldn't or wouldn't understand the circular causal processes that characterize all really complex systems. Sixty years after the founding of these sciences, they are still not generally well understood and complexity theory / chaos theory is busy rediscovering the insights from cybernetics while substantial parts of mainstream science still operate out of a reductionist / mechanistic framework.

 

Second, in looking at how people adopt new software or methods for developing large software programs, again there is a mindset problem. The cutting edge small SW company I worked for discovered that even tho we were keenly aware of this problem, it also applied to us. We discovered that we ourselves fell into this trap.

 

To sum up, stickiness is a nice concept that applies to what happens when a catchy phrase happens to coincide with a readiness for something. Stickiness has little or no relevance for changing a mindset.