The Negotiation Journal (NJ) has celebrated the careers of legends of the field. These legends have included Roger Fisher, Richard Walton and Robert McKersie, Howard Raiffa, Thomas Schelling, and Morton Deutsch. Steve Goldberg deserves his place among this pantheon of luminaries. Like the others, Steve had an extraordinary career that bridged theory with practice. He moved flawlessly among the roles of teacher, mentor, trainer, consultant/advisor, and researcher. He did not switch roles as he moved from one situation or context to another. Rather he practiced them all at once. He brought research findings to bear on his mediation and arbitration practices. He brought case-based experiences to teaching at Northwestern. And he demonstrated the practical value of concepts with large-N survey data. He spoke at academic conferences and to clients with the same cadence and messages, sometimes in the space of days or weeks. Few scholars have demonstrated Steve’s breadth and depth.
Steve was a vital part of the NJ community since its inception in 1986, having served on the advisory board throughout the journal’s existence. He also was one of the most prolific NJ authors, with more than a dozen articles appearing from 1988 to 2019. The articles cover such topics as grievance mediation as an alternative to labor arbitration, comparisons of mediation and arbitration (including the now-popular approach of med/arb), dispute system design, comparisons of judicial settlement and mediation, the value of gaining confidence in the mediator as a hallmark of success, understanding mediation through the eyes of its founders, and, most recently, an evaluation of Trump’s approach to conflict resolution. At the 30th anniversary celebration for NJ ten years ago, Steve was recognized as one of the most published authors in the journal. I had the good fortune to sit next to him, which provided me an opportunity to get to know him.
The tributes to follow provide insights into how Steve worked his magic and are personal reflections on being Steve’s colleague and friend through the years. I did not know Steve well, nor did I follow his work closely, in part due to our different specialties. The tributes introduced me to this multifaceted scholar-practitioner and provided an appreciation for his many contributions to the larger field of conflict analysis and resolution.
Bill Ury recounts an early experience working with Steve on a difficult conflict in Kentucky between the National Mineworkers Union and a coal employers association. This experience was the basis for Bill’s dissertation and for the idea of dispute system design. It demonstrates the value of a party-centered, interest-based approach to conflict settlement. Michael Lewis and Linda Singer discuss the value of Steve’s law-school textbook on alternative dispute resolution, his approach to training, his frontier work on med/arb, and his important work with the US Postal Service. Sylvia Skratek highlights the value of grievance mediation, building trust among disputants before handing the dispute to a third party, and focusing attention on the lowest level of actors in a conflict. Steve never forgot the parties even if it took a long time to get to yes. This marathon approach to mediation was more literally practiced in his passion for running marathon races with winning times. Sylvia concludes that Steve was a kind but stubborn presence.
Nancy Rogers and Sarah Cole’s tribute highlights the way Steve blended the theoretical with the practical in both his research and consulting roles. As a generator of new ideas, Steve had a way of making complex matters, such as multidimensional conflicts, understandable in a straightforward way. This skill is well reflected in the100-page book he coauthored entitled How Mediation Works. A more pedantic version of the book would have been twice as long. Nancy and Sarah also laud Steve’s casebook for students and his large N survey research, a valuable juxtaposition for discovering insights at both the case and population levels of analysis. Beatrice Blohorn-Brenneur appreciates the way that Steve rethought the role of the judge in dispute resolution. He compared vertical, top-down, approaches to horizontal, bottom-up approaches, with a concern for active listening to the disputants’ narratives about their needs and interests. His goal was to avoid long and costly trials that emphasize power rather than interests. Steve’s passion for active listening was the cornerstone for this approach. Beatrice credits much of her career to Steve’s mentorship. Like the other tributes, Beatrice provides a window on Steve the person.
We hope that you enjoy reading this set of tributes. Steve’s contributions will stand the test of time. Thanks Steve.
