| As NJ divorce attorneys, we are trained to be | | | | confused or overwhelmed. Positive energy is a great |
| advocates in the process known as "adversarial. Many | | | | thing, but it's also important to keep dialogues down to |
| of us self-selected into the legal profession partly | | | | a manageable pace. Participants need time for things |
| because our underlying personality and temperament | | | | to sink-in. Managing the pace of high advocacy, high |
| traits are geared toward advocacy. Similarly, lawyers | | | | inquiry discussion is also indispensable when taking into |
| "the good ones" are typically quite inquisitive. Their | | | | account the differences between introverted and |
| questioning techniques, however, often take on the | | | | extraverted (not a spelling error, but rather the Jungian |
| tone of cross-examination. | | | | term) personality types. While extraverts often relish |
| We can all stand to improve the way we practice the | | | | high pace, high energy dialogue, introverts often find |
| non-adversarial, settlement-oriented part of our | | | | them quite distracting, if not frankly annoying. |
| profession by paying attention to the way we employ | | | | Balancing advocacy with inquiry is necessary. Taken |
| the principles of advocacy and inquiry. | | | | alone, however, the balancing process is not enough to |
| Advocacy is stating one's views. Examples of | | | | promote a positive meeting of the minds. In order for |
| advocacy include: sharing how you're feeling; describing | | | | this to occur, the quality of advocacy and inquiry is also |
| what you're thinking; stating a judgment; pushing for a | | | | vital. For example, "That's a really moronic comment. |
| particular course of action, decision or outcome; and | | | | How long did it take you to come up with that one?" is |
| making demands. | | | | both a statement and a question, but it doesn't |
| Inquiry is asking a genuine question. By asking real | | | | encourage negotiated problem solving. Ideally, our use |
| questions, information is truly sought. Rhetorical or | | | | of advocacy should involve providing information to |
| leading questions are a kind of advocacy in disguise. | | | | others and explaining exactly how we moved from |
| We've all observed journalists and other questioners | | | | observing or collecting this information to our view of |
| with not-so-hidden agendas pose inquiries such as, | | | | the situation. Competent use of inquiry entails honestly |
| "Isn't it true that your administration's domestic fiscal | | | | seeking others' views, probing how they arrived at |
| policy has done a disservice to the elderly?" Another | | | | them, and encouraging them to challenge our |
| loaded style of pseudo question-asking might go | | | | perspective. Balancing high quality advocacy with high |
| something like, "Some people (not me, of course) might | | | | quality inquiry makes significant breakthroughs possible. |
| say that you handled yourself rather poorly in the first | | | | A DOZEN PRACTICE TIPS |
| two debates. How would you respond to such | | | | If we assume that we are obviously right and that our |
| criticism?" | | | | job is to get others to realize what we already know, |
| In any discussion or conference we are engaged in, | | | | we will be unable to promote either agreement on a |
| we can be high or low on advocacy. The same can | | | | specific issue or ultimate settlement. Accordingly, we |
| be said for inquiry. Regardless of whether our | | | | are well advised to: |
| advocacy and inquiry levels are high or low at a given | | | | 1) Assume from the onset that we may be missing |
| instance, we can come across positively or negatively, | | | | things that others see, and seeing things that others |
| depending upon our style, intent and often habit. | | | | miss. If we begin with this assumption, the result is that |
| For instance, if we are operating from a high | | | | we will listen more intelligently and inquire more |
| advocacy, low inquiry perspective, we come across | | | | genuinely without downplaying our own views. |
| quite positively if we are truly explaining our point of | | | | 2) Assume that others are acting in ways that make |
| view. Cramming our viewpoint down the other party's | | | | sense to them and that they are motivated to act with |
| throat, conversely, is a destructive tendency. It should | | | | integrity. (This advice applies, regardless of whether |
| be mentioned that high advocacy/low inquiry results in | | | | you believe another to be Demon Seed or the |
| one way communication, even if both people are | | | | reincarnation of Mother Theresa of Calcutta.) |
| engaged in it. It can be useful for giving information, but | | | | 3) Attempt to understand what leads to behavior that |
| doesn't enhance understanding of diverse | | | | we find problematic. Are others caught-up in |
| perspectives or build commitment to a specific course | | | | dilemmas? Are we contributing to any problems? |
| of action. Advocacy that imposes the proponent's | | | | 4) Help others to understand or appreciate our |
| views on others usually creates either compliance or | | | | viewpoints and how we think about them by giving |
| resistance. | | | | examples of the underlying data we select. Go on to |
| On the other hand, If we are geared up in the inquiry | | | | state the meaning that we find in the examples, and |
| department, but toning down the advocacy, we can | | | | explaining the steps in our thinking to others. |
| conduct meaningful, non-threatening information | | | | 5) Describe our understanding of the other's reasoning. |
| gathering interviews, or we can find ourselves falling | | | | 6) If we notice negative consequences to what others |
| into interrogation mode; a natural tendency for many | | | | may be doing, identify the consequences without |
| NJ divorce lawyers. High inquiry/low advocacy results | | | | attributing any intent on their part to create those |
| in one way communication in a different sense in that | | | | consequences. Distinguish between intent and impact; |
| the inquirer refrains from stating his or her views or | | | | between motive and outcome. |
| beliefs. While it can be quite useful for finding out | | | | 7) When choosing to disclose our emotions, we must |
| information, it can create difficulties when the inquirer | | | | endeavor to do so without implying that the other |
| has a hidden agenda, or is really using the questioning | | | | person is primarily responsible for creating our |
| process as a device to get the other person to | | | | emotional reactions. Remember also Eleanor |
| "discover" what the inquirer already thinks is right, or | | | | Roosevelt's observation that no one can make us feel |
| both. | | | | inferior without our permission. |
| There are certainly times when keeping both | | | | 8) Find out how others see the situation by asking |
| advocacy and inquiry levels to minimum is the way to | | | | them to give examples of the information they |
| proceed. This is what we're doing well when we are | | | | selected from which they necessarily drew the |
| observing or listening attentively. The flip side in this | | | | inferences which lead to their conclusions. Ask them to |
| realm is withdrawal. We've all observed this in | | | | explain the steps in their thinking. |
| four-way settlement conferences when a sore topic is | | | | 9) Ask for help in finding out what we may be missing |
| being discussed, with one spouse preaching from the | | | | by encouraging others to identify possible gaps or |
| soapbox while the other checks out mentally and | | | | errors in our thinking. |
| glazes over. Low inquiry/low advocacy also flows in | | | | 10) When we have difficulty with how others are |
| one direction: Participants watch, but contribute | | | | acting, ask them to explain what has prompted them |
| relatively little. This approach is ideally employed when | | | | to act as they have done, in a tone that suggests they |
| being a tacit observer is useful, but it can create | | | | may have a reasonable answer. |
| difficulties when participants withhold their views on | | | | 11) Inquire into others' feelings and emotions, but don't |
| key issues. | | | | ask, "What's your problem?" or "Why do you get so |
| Finally, in the context of energetic sessions when we | | | | worked up?" Say, instead, "You appear to be sad |
| are high in both advocacy and inquiry departments, | | | | about something, am I right? Do you feel comfortable |
| mutual learning or appreciation of each other's | | | | talking about it?" |
| viewpoints is the objective. High advocacy/high inquiry | | | | 12) Ask for help in exploring whether we are |
| fosters two way communication and learning. I state | | | | unknowingly contributing to the problem. Quite often, |
| my views and I inquire into yours; I invite you to state | | | | well-intended action on our part is problematic for |
| your views and inquire into mine. We must be careful, | | | | others. |
| particularly in the context of settlement talks, not to | | | | These tips have been extraordinarily helpful to many, |
| over-work the process. When excessive | | | | both in their work and private lives. I hope that you will |
| communications generate too much information | | | | find them helpful. |
| density, participants become worn-out, irritable and | | | | |