Originally from Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation

PAGE PREVIEW

Editor’s Note: The Master Mediator is taking a break from his fascinating, in-depth series on neuroscience and the psychological factors and cognitive biases that may affect dispute resolution. As Bob Creo’s earliest columns, describing and discussing mediation room techniques and practice issues, appeared a number of years ago, and only on the CPR website, Alternatives is delighted that he has agreed to reprise and update them, beginning in this issue, in a new “Back to Basics” series. This column deals with the concept of compromise; future columns in the series will cover “ghostbusting” in mediation, terms of reference, and constructing settlements. 

The above title uses a Swedish word, lagom, that roughly translates as “meeting in the middle satisfied.” A few years ago, at a conference in Europe, Conny Jornklin, a Swedish lawyer and neutral, taught me the word and its meaning over lunch. It is an adjective used to convey a positive solution to 
a dispute. The outcome is between the polar opposite positions taken by the parties.

Inherent in the Swedish word and its usage, however, is the implication that the solution is amicable and meets the needs of the parties. It involves compromise without rancor or remorse. In Sweden, a successful society built upon fundamentals of consensual resolution of political, economic and social problems, it is not surprising that the word exists not only as an adjective, verb, and noun, but also as a fundamental concept of civil harmony.