One of the most ineffective techniques I see in mediation is evaluating changes of offers and demands in percent. A plaintiff might say, “Defendant is not negotiating in good faith! We just moved 22% off our demand but they only increased their offer by 5%! We’re not moving again until we see a more reasonable move from them!”
I’m not sure why both sides do this because it is usually completely unconvincing to the other side.
The fact, if it is a fact, that the percentage of successful lawyers who eat broccoli jumped from 12.2% to 19.6% last year doesn’t tell us much. We don’t know anything about the quantity or the quality of the data collected. It might still be just seven lawyers and broccoli might only have happened to end up in their salads. And, even if the number did jump 315%, does it mean there’s any correlation? At least one recent president seemed to do pretty well without any broccoli.
First, starting points often have little relation to ending points. Sometimes it takes twenty moves to get to where the parties are even in the same hemisphere but then, in just two more moves, as the deadline approaches, they get to the same neighborhood and land on a deal. Percentage change means nothing when based on offers or demands that are outside the settlement range.
Second, percentage change is relative to the number. A 10% change on a one-million-dollar demand is $100,000.00 but a 10% change on a $100,000.00 offer is only $10,000.00. Because we’re always negotiating for ultimate dollars, the target for both sides is always a number, unrelated to any percentage of an offer or demand.
Percentages fascinate us. We accept a percentage salary increase even though we still aren’t very happy with the number. We look at percentage of stock market change even though all we care about is the actual price movement of our own equities. Percentage changes may be misleading because the change may be related to many factors and because comparing percentage changes is often meaningless.
I’m curious, has anyone used percentages to convince the other side in a mediation?
I’m not sure why both sides do this because it is usually completely unconvincing to the other side.
The fact, if it is a fact, that the percentage of successful lawyers who eat broccoli jumped from 12.2% to 19.6% last year doesn’t tell us much. We don’t know anything about the quantity or the quality of the data collected. It might still be just seven lawyers and broccoli might only have happened to end up in their salads. And, even if the number did jump 315%, does it mean there’s any correlation? At least one recent president seemed to do pretty well without any broccoli.
First, starting points often have little relation to ending points. Sometimes it takes twenty moves to get to where the parties are even in the same hemisphere but then, in just two more moves, as the deadline approaches, they get to the same neighborhood and land on a deal. Percentage change means nothing when based on offers or demands that are outside the settlement range.
Second, percentage change is relative to the number. A 10% change on a one-million-dollar demand is $100,000.00 but a 10% change on a $100,000.00 offer is only $10,000.00. Because we’re always negotiating for ultimate dollars, the target for both sides is always a number, unrelated to any percentage of an offer or demand.
Percentages fascinate us. We accept a percentage salary increase even though we still aren’t very happy with the number. We look at percentage of stock market change even though all we care about is the actual price movement of our own equities. Percentage changes may be misleading because the change may be related to many factors and because comparing percentage changes is often meaningless.
I’m curious, has anyone used percentages to convince the other side in a mediation?