INTEGRITY AGREEMENT INFO

MANKIND’S TRADITIONAL METHODS OF RESOLVING DISPUTES

In the beginning, mankind settled its disputes by mortal combat with swords, maces, or battle axes. As things improved, mankind resolved its disputes by dueling with pistols. Subsequently, mankind became civilized — now it resolves disputes with lawsuits. If you have ever been in a lawsuit, you may have wished instead that you had settled it with swords or dueling pistols.

China and Japan, for example, have very few lawyers. Disputes, therefore, rarely end up being litigated in court. Instead, individuals and family groups resolve their own discomforts through communication, negotiation, and mediation. Older, wiser people are brought in to help the parties resolve their discomforts in a quiet, educational method because they recognize that life’s problems  quite naturally surface from time to time and must be resolved with kindness, compassion, and fairness. In Germany, business differences are settled by the local Chamber of Commerce. The world thus provides ample evidence that not all disputes need be resolved in the courtroom. Consider the merits of the following statements:

Conflict is glamorous. Hard nosed attorneys sparing in long, drawn out courtroom battles are modern day heroes. Attorneys best solve disagreements in legal gladiator pits — may the best man or woman win. Lawsuits are the best way to solve problems, disputes, or conflicts.

To truly comprehend the absurdity of these statements, read Charles Dickens’ novel, Bleak House, where two families are locked in a legal battle that lasts for two or three generations. Both of the families’ respective wealth is wiped out by paying legal fees and costs for the lawsuits. The lawsuit is passed from senior partner to senior partner until the case becomes so muddled and confusing that even the attorneys cannot figure out what is going on. The legal documents generated from the lawsuit become so voluminous that room after room is filled to capacity. Eventually, the office scrivener loses the document index so that a system for finding documents or information no longer exists. The lawsuit finally ends. Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are given the key to the documents’ storehouse and are handed another huge legal bill. Yes, conflict really is glamorous, isn’t it?

People everywhere are coming to the realization that conflict will always exist and that lawsuits are definitely not glamorous. In fact, society is discovering that the traditional legal conflicts are extremely destructive to everyone involved. Sure, the attorneys get paid a fee, but they also suffer the headaches and ulcers which come from being the hired bulldogs who have to endure the traumas as the legal soldiers on the front lines of the legal battlefield. Lawsuits are a form of war where legal battles drain the litigants’ emotions and assets. The adversarial attitude is eroding away. Consequently, society is seeking other alternatives for resolving disputes other than in the courtroom.

THE CONCEPTION AND BIRTH OF THE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT

During his 25 years of courtroom legal experience, John  F. Goodson served as the plaintiff’s attorney in what was then one of the longest jury trials in the history of the State of Arizona. The trial, which involved a group of doctors on both sides, malingered for 3 months. Both sides were determined to fight a court battle until both counsel died of stress and the judge and jury fell asleep. The trial, however, ended in a hung jury. Naturally, everyone was quite disappointed.

Reflecting on that experience, John realized that court trials are a very primitive and inexact method of resolving simple business disputes. He also realized from other jury trials in which he had been involved that some lawyer at some point along the way could have prevented the trial. Moreover, he further realized that, in all of his years of schooling, he had never been exposed to a course on how to resolve discomforts that one person has with another. Sensing a strong need to change the mind set that has aggrieved parties turning to the adversarial system to resolve their disputes, he conceptually conceived and designed a legal document called the Integrity Agreement for Preventing and Resolving Dissension.

John designed the Integrity Agreement as a means of eliminating wars, duels, bloodshed, fist fights, vicious arguments, disputes, and lawsuits and as a method of resolving differences between human beings, which arise even in the most solid relationships. Though differences and disagreements are a normal part of any relationship, what is abnormal is that we, as a society, have not learned to properly deal with them. How we react and deal with those differences and disagreements determines whether we will continue to have a good relationship. If we cannot learn to settle our own differences without lawsuits, we cannot ever expect the world to settle its differences without war.

The spark or idea for the Integrity Agreement came from studying wealthy families and how they passed down wealth from generation to generation. One of the first guidelines for resolving discomforts within a family that was incorporated into the Integrity Agreement came from a clause in the Last Will and Testament of Anselm Rothschild, the founding member of the Rothschild family. This clause also has been used in many of the later Rothschild wills by his descendants. Anselm Rothschild wrote:

I charge all my dear children to live constantly in perfect harmony, not to allow family ties to loosen, to avoid all disputes, unpleasantness, and legal actions; to exercise forbearance and tolerance to one another and not to let themselves be carried away by angry passions; . . . let my children follow the example of their splendid grandparents; for these qualities have always insured the happiness and prosperity of the whole Rothschild family, and may my dear children never become unmindful of this family spirit.

Anselm Rothschild’s Last Will and Testament, written in 1874, is a display of character of the sophisticated, cosmopolitan Viennese grand seigneur. In its instructions and emotions, it is still an exact echo of the first patriarch’s will composed under a ghetto roof nearly three quarters of a century before.

THE PROCEDURES FOR SETTLING DISPUTES WITH THE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT

The Integrity Agreement provides a specific system for preventing and resolving disputes. The effectiveness of resolving disputes is dramatically increased when the following changes in attitude are applied to the process.

First, we must learn to identify and express our discomforts to the other party. With this ability to express our discomfort must come the realization that feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction are not bad. Discomfort and dissatisfaction often prompt positive changes which would not have occurred except for the discomfort or dissatisfaction. Without discomfort and dissatisfaction, no need for improvement exists.

While some disputes may be very disheartening, it is important not to let one dispute or series of disputes destroy the underlying relationship. Both sides must remain civil and courteous. When you discuss your discomfort with the other person, remember to preface your remarks by saying that your basic human feelings toward that person have not changed because of the dispute — you are uncomfortable not about the person but about their actions. Personal feelings should not be allowed to destroy the lines of communication that would prevent reaching any solution.

Second, after you have expressed your discomfort, invite the other party to help you develop a solution that will be “win–win.” All disputes should be turned into a positive experience where both parties come out better off than they were before — new policies, new decisions, better conditions. The key to finding a “win–win” solution is to enter any discussion with a positive attitude. If all parties have a positive expectancy (i.e., that the dispute will be resolved amicably), then most assuredly it will.

The Integrity Agreement is a legally enforceable document so that the contracting parties who sign it are unable to go to court if a controversy arises. The contracting parties are “forced” to follow a five-step process rather than file a lawsuit. If one step does not resolve the dispute, then the parties proceed to the next step. The following five-step process provides a systematic method and forum for resolving disputes where parties can express their discomforts and dissatisfactions outside the courtroom.

Step One — Notice of Discomfort. Within 24 hours of the first realization of discomfort, the aggrieved party should orally communicate to the other party the discomfort and the basis of the discomfort. Oftentimes, the other party is not aware of the discomfort and simply alerting him or her to it will resolve it. Neither party shall make assertions of blame or fault or take offense by the mere communication of the discomfort. Instead, each party shall discuss the discomfort and make every attempt to eliminate it.

Step Two — Notice of Dispute. If the dialogue between the parties fails to resolve the discomfort, the aggrieved party should communicate in writing to the other party within 5 business days of the Notice of Discomfort. The written communication should express the discomfort, explain its source, outline possible solutions, and recommend a reasonable time of performance to resolve it. The other party then will likewise respond in writing by expressing his or her positions and either agreeing to one of the solutions or offering one of his or her own.

Step Three — Informal Negotiation. If steps one or two fail to produce a solution, the third step is informal negotiation. The parties must meet for a fixed time (i.e., a 2-hour time period) to discuss their dispute during which time each party will be required to recite the other party’s position. This process helps both sides see the other’s point of view and also serves to clear up any misconceptions. Both parties shall write and sign a written statement of each item that is resolved and, if any items of dispute remain, the nature of the dispute and the position of each party.

Step Four — Mediation. If Steps One through Three fail to produce a solution to the dispute, each party selects a mediator. The two mediators may in turn select a third mediator. The mediators are empowered to bring in a psychologist or another expert if they feel the sole reason that the dispute has not been resolved is because of a personality conflict between the parties or because additional expertise is needed. Together, the parties and mediators meet to seek a solution. Copies of the written statement reflecting the items in dispute are given to the mediators prior to the meeting so that they can research and gather information that they believe will be helpful in resolving the dispute. At the meeting, each party may present additional facts, research, evidence, or information that clarifies the party’s position. The mediators will then restate each party’s position, offer comments, give opinions, and suggest ways of resolving the dispute. Both parties, working with the mediators, shall write and sign a written statement of each item that is resolved and, if any items of dispute remain, the nature of the dispute and the position of each party.

Step Five — Arbitration. If the previous four steps fail, a final resolution of the dispute will be entrusted to arbitration. Both parties working with the mediators will attempt to select one arbitrator. If they cannot agree on an arbitrator, each party will select one arbitrator. The two arbitrators then will select a third arbitrator. The parties, however, may agree to have the third arbitrator be someone they both respect such as their accountant, religious leader, attorney, or grandfather. The arbitrator or panel of arbitrators then meets and renders a final solution, which may include an assessment of the costs of mediation and arbitration, the charges of the arbitrators, and the attorneys’ fees of the prevailing party. The conclusions of the arbitrator is legally binding upon all parties.

THE PROVEN EFFECTIVENESS OF THE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT

In the October 7-15, 1985, issue of the Boston Business Journal, John F. Goodson, the innovative creator of the Integrity Agreement, was quoted as follows: “Families, companies of any size, even countries should use it. It’s a legal discovery comparable to the polio vaccine.” The Integrity Agreement’s effectiveness as a legal vaccination against the diseased adversarial system has been proven time and time again.

We not only believe in and whole heartedly endorse the Integrity Agreement for all families and businesses but also consistently and religiously use it to process all discomforts within our own families and businesses. When John’s father died, he used the Integrity Agreement to forestall a rift with one of his sisters that developed out of the emotional trauma of the death of their father. After reminding his sister that they had signed the Integrity Agreement, they processed their discomfort under the procedures for settling disputes and settled their differences on the third step (i.e., informal negotiation).

In another instance, several parties to the Integrity Agreement (i.e., Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in contravention of the Integrity Agreement, arguing that they were not bound by it. The court disagreed and ordered the Plaintiffs to proceed under the procedures set forth in the Integrity Agreement. The court further imposed sanctions on the Plaintiffs for filing a lawsuit in contravention of the Integrity Agreement, ruling that it was not well grounded in fact and warranted under existing law nor brought with substantial justification. Accordingly, the court ordered the Plaintiffs to pay all of the Defendant’s costs and attorney’s fees.

Each of us is left with a choice to make. Do we practice preventive law and have our families, employees, and key business contacts sign the Integrity Agreement? Or, do we stick to the old method and file a lawsuit whenever disagreements arise? If the answer or choice is not 100 percent clear, spend a day in court watching courtroom battles, talk to people who have been involved in lawsuits, or read Charles Dickens’ novel, Bleak House. For there is nothing, absolutely nothing, positive or glamorous about lawsuits that would persuade someone to choose a lawsuit over the Integrity Agreement as an alternative for resolving disputes.

HOW TO BUILD A BOMB SHELTER AGAINST POSSIBLE LAWSUITS

This internal warfare is commonly known as lawsuits and is costing us billions of dollars annually. These losses can be cut dramatically if each person, family, organization, and business learns how to establish and maintain relationships in such a way as to prevent and avoid lawsuits. The first line of defense in maintaining harmonious relationships is the Integrity Agreement. Your relationships will be further solidified and bombproofed against possible lawsuits if you will employ the following recommendations.

Make Every Deal “Win-Win”. The first rule of thumb in preventing possible lawsuits is to ensure that any agreement you enter into is fair. When John F. Goodson began practicing law, he asked the senior partner of the law firm what was the key to his negotiating success. The senior partner revealed that every agreement must be fair to all parties involved. If the agreement is not fair, then the losing party is going to seek some sort of recourse which likely will wipe out any advantage gained.

If you therefore enter into a new agreement with another party, always ask yourself, “How can I make this a “win-win” relationship?” “Win-win” occurs when both parties equally benefit from the agreement.

Make Every Deal “Fun-Fun”. You not only want a “win-win” agreement but also need to ensure that it is “fun-fun.” Disputes are less likely to arise when both sides have enjoyed dealing with each other.

The best way to foster a “win-win”, “fun-fun” agreement is to put yourself in the other party’s position. Doing so enables you to empathize with that party and discover ways to make the agreement more profitable, comfortable, and enjoyable for all parties.

Involve All Necessary Parties. Another important way to avoid potential legal problems and pitfalls is to ensure that all major decision makers and advisors are present during any discussion of the agreement. Involving all necessary parties will avoid what we call the “muddy water downstream syndrome.”

The “muddy water downstream syndrome” occurs when a person present at the meeting attempts to discuss what transpired to an advisor who was not present. Details often are lost, and issues often become fuzzy or confused.

Record the Meeting. We recommend that the meeting to formulate the agreement be tape recorded. The audiotape will clear up any discrepancies that may arise in the future. The audiotape also may be incorporated by reference into the agreement.

The audiotape serves the same function as “legislative history,” which is used by judges and attorneys in determining the intent of the legislature, which enacts the statutes. If a dispute arises later, either party may review the tape to determine the parties’ intent.

Think Through All Possible Contingencies — What Can Go Wrong? To further “bombproof” the agreement against possible lawsuits, we recommend that you brainstorm with what we call the “plane crash” scenario. This scenario requires you to think of every possible way the agreement could fall apart and to deal with each of those contingencies.

By working out solutions to each of those contingencies and incorporating them into the agreement, you psychologically and legally prepare yourself for the worst situation which then, in all probability, will not happen.

Put Agreement in Writing. Finally, remember that all provisions of your agreement must be in writing so as to prevent “favorable forgetting.” We further recommend that the Integrity Agreement be incorporated into every contract or new agreement. Doing so will ensure that discomforts, which naturally arise as the rough edges of human beings tumble together in a new relationship, are resolved in an educational and inexpensive manner.

By following these recommendations, you will be able to enter into an agreement with more confidence that a lawsuit will not arise later, thereby preventing unnecessary and costly lawsuits in our economic war with the rest of the world by trying to survive with more efficient production methods.

HOW TO ELIMINATE “PEOPLE INTERACTION VIRUSES” IN YOUR FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES

Many of the problems in organizations that cause emotional and monetary losses can be attributed to “people interaction viruses.” Unfortunately, these “people interaction viruses” exist in epidemic proportions in our families, businesses, churches, government, civic organizations, and almost every organization where people come together.

These “people interaction viruses” are like the “computer viruses” that have been identified and diagnosed in computer espionage, in which programming codes are intentionally placed in a computer program to eat up portions of the program, like Pac Man, and gradually destroy its effectiveness.

“People interaction viruses” are distorted communications of discomfort which do not solve problems but rather intensifies them and increases the pain. They create negative energy and unpleasant feelings. They make people not want to gather together or associate with one another. They sap the energy of everyone. They waste time. They create stress. They cause heart attacks and ulcers. They sometimes even erupt into costly lawsuits.

IDENTIFICATION OF SOME COMMON “PEOPLE INTERACTION VIRUSES”

Listed below are some of the “people interaction viruses” that have been spotted and identified in various organizations. Each one of these “people interaction viruses” is eliminated or cured by the Integrity Agreement. Perhaps, after you review this list, you will be able to suggest  other “people interaction viruses” that you have observed.

Martyr Virus. We sometimes see a “martyr” in the employees’ lounge surrounded by a group of listeners. Tears are rolling down the listeners’ cheeks as the employee tells about how horrible his life is, how management is mistreating him, and how he has never had a complete 15-minute work break in 3 years. He seeks additional compassion by telling about how his boss stutters and how it rankles his ears. He never communicates his discomfort directly with the person who has caused his discomfort.

The martyr chooses to hide behind the trees of turmoil so that he will never be identified. These martyr scenes frequently take place all around the office, consuming time and creating negative vibes.

Gossip Virus. The gossip virus goes buzz, buzz, buzz, all around the office. The employees complain to one another about how their work breaks have been only 13 minutes and not the 15 minutes promised by management 2 years ago. As management walks around the office, they wonder why the employees are scowling at them. Nobody informs management of the discomfort because, after all, gossip is more fun if it’s secret.

Probably half of our conversation is gossip, and the other half is complaining. When people have nothing else to say or gossip about, they complain. Though many of us may complain about the problems with our local, county, state, or national government, how many of us have communicated our discomforts with our elected officials?

End-Run Virus. One of the employees knows that the receptionist has the same hairdresser as the  owner’s wife and therefore relates tales of discomfort to the receptionist about how he has never had a complete 15-minute work break in 3 years. The receptionist then relates the tales of discomforts to the hairdresser who, in turn, relates them to the owner’s wife.

Whammo! What happens? The owner is at home peacefully reading his newspaper when his wife interrupts him with a loud voice “Why are you cheating your employees on their work breaks?” Squirts of hydrochloric acid rush into the owner’s stomach.

By the time the story reaches the owner through this circuitous end-run communication, it has escalated in size, proportion, and distortion like the proverbial snowball that builds up weight as it bounces downhill. The end-run virus is a communication virus that results in wasting time and creating a quadruple “whammy” on the victim. Instead of going directly to the person who caused the discomfort, the person goes to others who again pass it on to others until it eventually reaches the person who caused the discomfort.

Hidden Agenda Virus. At the staff meeting, management preaches to the staff about high overhead, lack of production, and inefficient work habits. Management’s real intent, however, is to cheat the employees out of their complete 15-minute work break.

The “hidden agenda” virus results in people never talking about the real problem but instead talking around it in such a way that others do not know where you are or where they stand with you.

Grandstanding Virus. A meeting starts wonderfully. There is positive talk about how well the company is doing. The boss then proceeds to describe a new technique to manufacture widgets more profitably. Then, out of the blue, one of the employees announces for the first time that his investigation reveals that the company is cheating the employees out of their complete 15-minute work break. The employee found a problem and therefore is a hero.

The announcement usually causes embarrassment or insinuates nonperformance or incompetency of one of the persons in the room. For the grandstand virus to work effectively, it must catch everybody in the meeting by surprise without forewarning or previous discussion of the problem. The bedazzled listeners do not have any facts available to refute or understand the problem except the grandstander.

Silent Treatment Virus. The manager asks the employee again and again “What’s bothering you?” The employee does not respond, believing that his silence will somehow emotionally punish the manager for his mistreatment. The silent employee begins feeling guilty. After several days of suffering takes place, the silent employee comes forward and tells the manager, “You know I’m really angry that I only get a 13-minute work break and not a 15-minute work break.

The silent treatment virus is something we learned as children. If we clammed up when we were angry, we would get the attention of our parents and cause them to fret and worry.  Many people, unfortunately, are still carriers of the virus.

Screamer Virus. While the boss is in his office comfortably reviewing financial statements and detailed materials, he suddenly hears a loud voice screaming. The voice is calculated to be leaking over to at least five other people. The scream is followed by the loud voice saying, “Oh, no! They again cheated us out of our 15-minute work break.” The screamer glows warmly, knowing that he not only has gotten the attention of several of the boss’s peers but also has unsubtly conveyed the discomfort to others, thereby taking pleasure in making a disturbance and getting attention.

Exploder Virus. A conscientious, young employee walks into the manager’s office and  says, “I would like to share a discomfort with you. Our work breaks have been cut from 15 to 13 minutes. I thought management should know about this discomfort so that they can explain or correct the action. If I were in your shoes, I know that I would want to know about it.”

After having the discomfort communicated to him, the manager explodes and shouts, “We give you all more fringe benefits than any other company. You waste time and do not deserve a work break.” Unfortunately, the exploder virus chops a big bite out of any future attempt at direct, open, and honest communication.

Moper Virus. The moper virus shows itself in a puckered-up face of one of the employees as he walks around vibrating negative energy to everyone he passes. His face usually ruins the day for most of the people in the office who wonder what’s bothering him. Though he sometimes talks under his breath, he can faintly be heard mumbling about short work breaks.

Communication-By-Dragging-Your-Feet Virus. The management team has a wonderful meeting. They unanimously vote to borrow additional working capital from the bank. The vote goes quickly. No one present at the meeting voices any objection. The managers then are asked to deliver their financial statements to the comptroller.

One week  passes. Two weeks pass. Three weeks pass. Two managers still do not deliver their financial statements. Their delay is a vote against the move to borrow additional working capital which they did not have the courage to raise at the meeting.

Communication-By-Rebellious-Acts Virus. Everyone in the company votes to have 15-minute work breaks. Hurrah! Smiles! Laughter! Later that evening, the comptroller hides the refreshments in the employees’ lounge and cancels the order for additional refreshments.

Old Discomfort Virus. An employee walks into the manager’s office and  says, “I would like to share a discomfort with you. Our work breaks have been cut from 15 to 13 minutes. I thought management should know about this discomfort so that they can explain or correct the action.”

“People interaction viruses” are very contagious and can quickly disease an organization. After one person has been miffed by a virus, they tend to want to get even — to manifest their negative emotions with other viruses. Soon, management is dying of heart attacks or retiring early. Employees are resigning. Working efficiency goes down. Employees watch the clock to leave work exactly at the appointed hour and no later.

If all employees of the organization where the work break discomfort occurred had signed the Integrity Agreement, all of the identified organizational viruses could have been cured. The martyr, gossiper, end-runner, grandstander, moper, screamer, exploder, and silent-treatment giver all would have immediately eliminated their discomfort by going directly to the person who could remedy the problem and communicating the discomfort.

The Integrity Agreement requires expressing the discomfort within 24 hours of the time that the discomfort first occurs so that the feeling does not fester and spread like a creepy-crawly virus. The managers who did not agree to submit their financial statements would have been required, within 24 hours, to convey their true feelings of discomfort rather than remain silent during the meeting and cast their negative vote by “dragging their feet.” The comptroller who had a phobia against work breaks would have been required to convey that discomfort within 24 hours to avoid the necessity of communicating by rebellious acts.

In return, the person hearing the discomfort would not have exploded because such conduct is prohibited by the Integrity Agreement. Instead, the person would have shared facts and feelings aimed at eliminating or compromising the discomfort.

Listed below are three tools to diagnose these “people interaction viruses” and the prescriptions on how to cure them promptly. These tools are (1) the Integrity Agreement for Preventing and Resolving Dissension, (2) “people greasing” on a regular basis, and (3) an “attitude/opinion survey” conducted by a human resources consultant.

HOW TO USE THE INTEGRITY AGREEMENT AS AN ANTIDOTE AND CURE FOR “PEOPLE INTERACTION VIRUSES”

Our law firm practices Preventive Law. Preventive Law is thinking like a champion chess player who plans ahead to win and prevent checkmate. As practitioners of Preventive Law, we advise families and businesses that every family member and every business associate must sign the Integrity Agreement. Signing the Integrity Agreement is like taking a birth control pill — a lawsuit control pill. You need it when you get into a relationship. It not only prevents lawsuits between the parties (which are expensive and emotionally trying) but also helps to prevent and eliminate “people interaction viruses.”

The following example illustrates how to use the Integrity Agreement as an antidote and cure for “people interaction viruses.” Suppose an employee in a business has a discomfort about his work break being only 13 minutes instead of 15 minutes. The process for resolving the discomfort under the Integrity Agreement would be as follows:

Step One. On the day that the employee first felt the discomfort, he would approach his manager and verbally express that he is uncomfortable about management breaking an earlier promise by permitting a work break of only 13 minutes, not 15 minutes.

The manager would not explode and be angry but instead thank the employee for honestly sharing his discomfort. The manager would ask the employee, “What would you like management to do to make you and the other employees comfortable?”

The employee would say, “Within the next 5 days, I would like management to apologize to the employees for not allowing them a complete 15-minute work break as promised. The apology could be communicated in a notice distributed to all employees, advising them that management is going to honor the 15-minute work break.”

Step Two. If the manager does not respond to eliminate the discomfort within the time requested, the employee would write a letter to the manager, indicating that he was serious in expressing his discomfort about the work break. In the letter, the employee would explain, in more detail, his feelings and reasons of discomfort and again request that action be taken as prescribed in the letter within a certain time period. Likewise, the manager would respond in writing to the employee, expressing his position and either agreeing to the employee’s recommended solution or offering another solution of his own.

Step Three. If the manager still fails to allow the 15-minute work break as outlined in the employee’s written request, and if the employee does agree with any alternative solutions offered by the manager, then the aggrieved employee will seek a meeting with the manager to negotiate the matter. At that meeting, the employee and manager will listen to the positions of the other party and be required to state the other party’s position (even though they may not agree with it) in words acceptable to the other party. This process ensures that each party clearly heard the position of the other side. Many times the failure to listen and understand the other party’s position creates a barrier to the resolution. The employee and manager would then write and sign a statement of each item that they resolved regarding the work break and, if any items of dispute remain, the nature of the dispute and each of their positions.

During the negotiations, never ask for that which you would not be willing to give. Keep things in balance. You do not get ahead by having a “win-lose” agreement.

Step Four. If the negotiations fail to bring about the desired result or a compromise  acceptable to both sides, then the issue is processed by mediation. The employee and manager each select a mediator, who might be an expert from that field. The manager might invite a manager from another company, and the employee might invite a human resources consultant.

The four parties then meet and talk about the discomfort. The two mediators have the right to bring in a psychologist or psychiatrist if they see that either party has psychological hang-ups. If, for example, during the discussions, the manager pounded on the wall and screamed when work breaks were mentioned, his actions would be an indication that a psychologist is needed. Maybe the manager, while growing up, was consistently placed in timeout by his parents for 15-minute intervals and is overly irrational about 15-minute intervals or breaks.

The fresh, objective, educational input from experts in the field who are brought in hopefully will bring enough light to cause a change of position by one of the parties or a compromise. The employee and manager, working with the mediators, would then write and sign a statement of each item that they resolved regarding the work break and, if any items of dispute remain, the nature of the dispute and each of their positions.

Step Five. If all else fails, the parties may select one individual to be the arbitrator (i.e., the judge). The arbitrator could be a retired judge; a minister; a rabbi; or, if they cannot agree on some prestigious person to render judgment for them, the parties each could select a “judge-type” person, and those two persons would select a third person. The arbitrator or panel of arbitrators would meet and render a legally binding decision. To save face when the final decision is rendered, all parties are required to keep the decision confidential. They cannot tell the newspapers, their relatives, or even the whole company but must respect the privacy and confidentiality of the dispute resolution process.

Everyone in each family and business must carefully read the Integrity Agreement to understand the process it outlines. That is why we have detailed some of our experiences with it so that all will know how it should be used. You will find that the Integrity Agreement will save time and adverse emotions and will bring quick, positive results to your families and businesses.

HOW TO USE “PEOPLE GREASING” TO ELIMINATE THE DISCOMFORTS THAT LATER BECOME “PEOPLE INTERACTION VIRUSES”

Sometimes, there is not enough time for communication within a busy organization for the relationships between the personnel to work smoothly together. We therefore recommend setting up situations for “people greasing.” “People greasing”  must occur under different circumstances to ensure that “people interaction viruses” are exposed and treated early before they spread. We have found that the following “people greasing” procedures help to coax out the viruses so that they may be remedied.

Meetings. We recommend that a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly executives’ meeting be held where information and discomforts can be shared, allowing discomforts to be transposed to affirmative actions. These meetings must be formal with a precise agenda and facilitator to cover all the necessary issues.