Historical German legal traditions, such as trade and merchant courts in Imperial Germany, also favored conflict resolution through structured, procedural means rather than confrontational hearings, emphasizing mediation and separate interviews to manage disputes effectively.
Judge and Procedure
Role of the Judge and Procedure: In German civil litigation, the judge plays an active, guiding role during oral hearings, often steering the process to avoid escalation. The court can propose settlement discussions and, if mediation is chosen, the mediator may meet with parties separately or together, depending on what is deemed most constructive. This flexibility allows for the avoidance of direct, adversarial exchanges.
in-court mediation
Mediation Models: There are several models of in-court mediation, including integration (mediator is a judge from the same court but not involved in the case), extension (mediator from another court), and outsourcing (external lawyer as mediator). All these models are designed to ensure impartiality and reduce the risk of direct confrontation, often involving separate interviews or caucuses with each party.
get to the bottom
“Let’s get to the bottom of this.” Suggests investigating thoroughly—gathering facts and testimonies—to resolve the conflict.
Sacco and Vanzetti
The Sacco and Vanzetti trial had a profound influence on American perceptions of conflict resolution by exposing the limitations and vulnerabilities of the open hearing system when prejudice and social tensions are present.
Public Hearing as a Double-Edged Sword: The trial was highly public, with both defendants and accusers present, embodying the American expectation that justice is served through open hearings where all sides confront each other. However, the proceedings revealed how such openness could be compromised by widespread nativism and anti-immigrant sentiment, leading to a process where the accused were judged as much for their background and beliefs as for the actual evidence against them.
Exposure of Systemic Bias: The case became an emblem of injustice, demonstrating that even in a system designed for fairness through open confrontation, outcomes could be deeply affected by societal prejudice. The trial and its aftermath showed that “who you are and, in this instance, what you believe, has an enormous amount to do with how you’re treated by the judicial system”.
Catalyst for Reform and Debate: The public outcry and international attention the case generated led to calls for legal reforms, such as changes in Massachusetts law to allow the Supreme Court to review facts in death penalty cases, rather than only procedural matters. The trial forced Americans to confront foundational questions about equality, fairness, and the role of bias in conflict resolution.
Symbol of Ongoing Debate: Sacco and Vanzetti’s case turned into a rallying point for those seeking to combat injustice and prejudice, and it remains a touchstone in debates about the American justice system, open hearings, and the treatment of minorities and dissenters.
In summary, the Sacco and Vanzetti trial revealed both the strengths and vulnerabilities of the American approach to conflict resolution through open hearings, highlighting that true justice requires not only procedural openness but also vigilance against bias and prejudice within the system.
Watergate
Public Inquiries and Congressional Hearings. Example: Watergate Hearings (1973–1974). Congressional hearings into the Watergate scandal involved the systematic collection of documents, tapes, and extensive witness testimony. Lawmakers acted as judges, weighing both types of evidence to determine wrongdoing and recommend action.
Fester
Americans – both team leads and team members – almost always prefer a suboptimal conflict resolution reached in a timely manner over an optimal resolution arrived at late. Americans refer to conflicts which fester.
fester: to become painful and infected; to become worse as time passes; to cause increasing poisoning, irritation, or bitterness; to undergo or exist in a state of progressive deterioration; to make inflamed or corrupt; “We should deal with these problems now instead of allowing them to fester.”
First known use 14th century. Synonyms: break down, corrupt, decompose, disintegrate, decay, foul, mold, molder, perish, putrefy, rot, spoil.
confidential sources
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972). This Supreme Court case addressed whether journalists could refuse to testify about confidential sources. The Court considered both the objective need for evidence in criminal cases and the subjective arguments about press freedom. The majority opinion emphasized that courts must balance these interests on a case-by-case basis, reviewing both facts and testimony to reach a fair outcome. The case illustrates the American approach of acting as a judge—considering all available evidence and subjective claims before making a ruling.
legal tradition
American managers’ approaches to conflict resolution reflect historical legal precedents by emphasizing structured, evidence-based processes rooted in the country’s adversarial legal tradition. This tradition prioritizes the careful weighing of both objective facts and subjective testimony, mirroring the way courts operate in the United States.
Adversarial Process and the Role of the Judge. The American legal system is built on an adversarial model, where opposing sides present evidence and testimony before a neutral judge or jury, who then makes a binding decision. American managers, drawing from this model, often see themselves more as judges than mediators: they listen to all parties, consider documentation and witness statements, and then render a decision.
Integration of Objective and Subjective Evidence. Just as courts balance physical evidence with personal testimony, managers in American businesses are trained to gather both factual data (e.g., records, emails, policies) and subjective input (e.g., employee perspectives, witness accounts) before resolving disputes. This dual approach ensures that decisions are both fair and defensible.
Inluence of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Legal precedents such as the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (established by the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947) and the rise of arbitration and mediation in the late 20th century have influenced corporate practices. Many American companies now utilize mediation, arbitration, and other ADR mechanisms, reflecting the legal system’s endorsement of structured, evidence-based conflict resolution outside of court.
Emphasis on Documentation and Process. Legal history in the U.S. underscores the importance of process, documentation, and transparency. Managers are expected to document conflicts, follow established procedures, and provide clear rationales for their decisions—practices modeled after legal standards and reinforced by court rulings on due process and fairness.
Precedent and Consistency. Just as legal precedent guides future court decisions, American managers often look to company policy, past cases, and industry standards to ensure consistency and fairness in conflict resolution.
Chief Slowdown Officer
Lex Fridman interviews Jeff Bezos about making decisions:
YouTube comments:
“I think this is very liberating for perfectionists, most decisions are not permanent and you can pick another door if necessary, if they are one way door decisions then you can allow for some perfectionism.”
“I’m the same age as Bezos. Also studied engineering and moved into management. What he’s talking about is, basically, exactly what we were taught in our control systems engineering classes back at university. Almost all engineer managers of our age group say the same thing.”
“I think everyone fails to understand the message of this discussion. It’s not about decision-making mechanisms, it’s about truth-seeking and the idea that no matter what the debate is about the objective should always be to try to get as close as possible to the truth to make the decision that resembles closest to the truth. That’s the whole point of this conversation, to leave the ego aside and search for truth.”