What's There to Lose?: Communication Risks of ODR
In this age of text messaging, same-day purchase delivery, and worldwide real-time news coverage, we have the privilege of getting what we want in an instant, whether it’s information or a best-selling book. Recognizing this desire for quick solutions, the Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) industry seeks to provide what traditional courts seemingly can’t: timely and cost-efficient dispute resolution. And, like it or not, ODR is becoming a player on the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) landscape.
ODR has been around since 1999, but has been gaining momentum in recent years with a wide variety of dispute resolution tools. Some ODR tools provide real-time collaborative document sharing and revision, while others provide a mediation-like service through online messaging.
ODR may overcome the efficiency hurdles that traditional courts struggle with, but at what cost?
As a mediator, I believe one of the most important components of successful dispute resolution is the opportunity for direct human interaction and fluid communication. A typical mediation might take four hours – that’s four hours of intentional, purposeful communication. Four hours of filling in the informational gaps and conducting creative problem solving.
ODR involves taking complex and often disparate interpretations of the facts in dispute and paring them down to bite-sized written, electronically exchanged words. Direct human interaction is removed from the equation. What are the potential implications of using a text-driven process to resolve disputes on overall communication effectiveness and participant satisfaction? This issue has been studied in various contexts with revealing results.
Communication in Medical Care
In 2005, researchers at the University of Chicago found that poor communication between doctors when transferring patients led to a high incidence of negative health events and close-calls. The two most significant factors in these situations were missing information in written communication and a lack of face to face discussion between doctors about patient care.
These research findings demonstrate the risk of exclusive reliance on written communication, and suggest that a face to face exchange might lead to more thorough information sharing in these circumstances.
Communication in ODR
The folks at Harvard’s Program on Negotiation have expressed similar concerns about written communication. According to their research, written information exchanged through electronic means is “less likely to be true, less likely to be relevant and clear, and therefore less informative and useful than similar information exchanged face to face.”
Recognizing the risk in online communication, rapidly growing ODR provider Modria offers a dispute resolution tool that allows disputants to customize a process that fits their needs and fosters effective information exchange. Through its ‘diagnosis’ stage and detailed intake forms, Modria seeks to ensure that the on-line process is effective and that all the key information surrounding the dispute is on the table.
Efforts like Modria’s are critical in developing ODR models that foster accurate issue identification and information exchange. But, we don’t communicate solely through the words we exchange; how we exchange them can be critical in eliciting a productive response, as experts estimate that as much as 93% of communication pertaining to feelings and attitudes is non-verbal. Frequently, it’s the message behind the written words that carries the most meaning and weight.
A Caring Computer – The Future of ODR?
On June 5th, global conglomerate SoftBank introduced an emotionally intelligent robot prototype named Pepper. While Pepper and its electronic friends are still being developed, SoftBank is striving for a robot that can interpret human emotion from visual and verbal cues, continually improving its emotional intuition.
While I doubt robots will be conducting mediations any time soon, it is an interesting glimpse into the future. Could computers eventually bridge the communication gap created by the absence of face-to-face communication? How might automated emotional intelligence help shape the future of ODR?
Regardless of the platform, if ODR is to become a truly viable option on the spectrum of ADR processes, it needs to pay greater attention to the importance that communication plays in fostering accurate information sharing, increased understanding, sustainable agreements and dispute resolution satisfaction. ODR may reduce process costs and save time, but if these benefits come at the expense of compromised communication and half-baked negotiated outcomes, it may have limited application.
