ILNews

Cultural background may affect mediation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Elodie Meuser, an Indianapolis attorney and mediator with The Mediation Option, recalls times when the firm has handled cases involving people from different countries. One case, in particular, resulted in a slightly puzzling outcome.

“I wasn’t personally involved in the mediation – but we had a gentleman who was from Tunisia, and when things seemed to not be going his way, he ended the mediation. Of course that’s what everybody wants when they come to mediation – they want to get their way. But it was a bit unusual that it ended so quickly,” she said.

Mediators say that they must be able to understand cultural differences without making broad generalizations or assumptions.

“As neutrals, we have to make sure that our experiences don’t enter into it,” Meuser said.

Real and perceived differences

We’ve all heard the saying, “As American as apple pie,” but some Americans don’t like apples. Or pie. So to assume that all members of a particular culture share the same values or personality traits would be a fallacy, as attorney and mediator Sam Ardery explained.

Ardery, of the Bloomington firm Bunger & Robertson, said that he does not assume that people from different cultures will necessarily react differently to mediation than anyone else would.

“It doesn’t give them credit for having done their own research about it,” he said.

When Ardery knows that clients come from different cultural backgrounds, he tries to learn about the people before he meets them.

“I do a little more preparation ahead of time and call those people, or call their lawyers and talk to them,” he said.

Some differences are not so much about customs in other cultures, but are more about the value Americans place on certain transactions – like contracts.

“In the United States, we sign a contract, we assume it’s binding. But for some people when they sign a contract, that’s the beginning of the negotiation,” Ardery said.

Doing business at home and abroad
 

lykins-dallin-mug.jpg Lykins

Dallin Lykins, an immigration attorney at Lewis & Kappes in Indianapolis who has mediated family law cases, has experienced how some cultures have a different view of business relationships.

Lykins was a missionary for his church in Costa Rica for two years, and in that time, he observed an approach to business that is considerably different than the contract-driven American business culture.

“It seemed to me that a lot of their issues they took much more personally. Especially in business settings, everyone was viewed as a friend,” he said.

“Almost every aspect of our lives is based on, ‘We have to form a contract first.’ In Costa Rica, I didn’t notice this as much. It was often, ‘This guy’s my friend, and this should be fine,’ and that was very often successful when a dispute came up,” Lykins said.

Much of what Lykins understands about cultural differences he learned through the process of trial-and-error.

He said his tendency to think, “There’s a problem, you resolve it,” wasn’t necessarily what people expected out of him, especially in family disagreements. “They wanted someone to help them handle the emotional aspects of the dispute.”

In cross-cultural mediations, he said, mediators should take the time to learn about how the specific problem parties wish to address – divorce, for example – may carry different weight in another country.

“You have to do your homework and know about that culture and what to expect, but second, listen to them and know what their background is and what they expect,” Lykins said.

The best way to understand a person’s background is to ask, rather than assume, as reflected in the Pew Hispanic Center’s report called, “When Labels Don’t Fit: Hispanics and Their Views of Identity.” The report, released April 4, stated only 29 percent of Latino or Hispanic people agree that they share a common culture, with 69 percent saying that Latinos in the United States have many different cultures.

Language barriers

Meuser’s firm handled a mediation between a Muslim man and his ex-wife, in which one disagreement concerned a word he asked his daughter to use when referring to his new wife, who was also Muslim.

“What this gentleman wanted was to refer to his new wife by a name that wasn’t familiar to everyone, and the biological mother was concerned that the man’s daughter was calling her ‘Mommy,’” Meuser said. “We did research on the Internet while they were here, and we tried to find out what the meaning was of that word, and we found out that word wasn’t ‘mother,’ but that it was a term for a revered adult female.”

The father hadn’t been able to explain the word – at least not to his ex-wife’s satisfaction. But when mediators explained what they found in their online research, she did not object to the term.

Meuser recalled another instance where language presented some challenges for mediators.

“We also had a Japanese woman here who had bank accounts in Japan, and her husband was relying on her to translate, to say what they meant,” she said. The mediators had no way of knowing whether the woman’s translation of the documents was accurate, so the final mediation agreement was drafted to say that if the husband later found out that she had deceived him about the bank accounts, the case would be reopened.

Cultural impact on closure

The American Bar Association’s Section of Dispute Resolution scheduled a continuing legal education program for April 20, to be held at its annual convention. The program description for the CLE, “When Is A Deal A Deal?  The Impact of Culture on Closure and the Durability of Settlement Agreements,” states that in different cultures, people view fairness, truth and durability quite differently. That’s something Ardery heard about recently at a seminar.

“I was just at an ethics seminar in Cincinnati and they had two people there who were general counsel for large multinational organizations and they talked about situations they ran into where they went into certain cultures where gift-giving was part of the culture,” he said. To Americans, gift-giving in business can be seen as bribing.

“So (while) in the United States no one would legally expect to go and give someone in the government a gift – I’m going to buy you a vacation home, and you pass this piece of legislation – there are some places in the world where that is expected,” he said.

Ardery said that despite any differences between cultures, mediators generally must prove their trustworthiness in the same manner, using the “Trust Equation” set forth in the book “The Trusted Advisor,” by David Maister, Charles Green and Robert Galford.

That equation means mediators must demonstrate credibility, reliability and intimacy – or, how secure the client feels – all over a “denominator” of self-interest, meaning the mediator is motivated by the client’s needs.

“In thinking about that, I think it really applies, whether somebody grew up in the Midwest, or somebody grew up halfway around the world,” Ardery said.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT