Defining Success in Negotiation and Other Dispute Resolution Training

Once upon a time in the far-off kingdom of Learningland, three negotiation courses were held during the same week in the capital city, Rarelyfail.

Course A was held in the Hilton Hotel, with delicious food and three speakers. Two of the speakers were famous practitioner negotiators who regularly appeared in the popular media. Their fields of expertise were international trade with China and hostage rescue. The third was an academic who writes popular books and who teaches on occasion at a prestigious American university.

The three speakers told gripping and humorous stories for two days with many movie clips and PowerPoint diagrams. Six hundred people watched and laughed for two days, ate delicious food, and met a few new and old friends. They each paid four thousand dollars (U.S.) to attend.

Course B was held across the city in a large conference room at the large law firm of Smith, Hughes, and Swazenburg. This course was mandatory for all midlevel lawyers in the firm, and the attendees flew in from various cities to attend (some rather reluctantly). Ten customers of the firm were also invited to send one representative each.

Thirty-one people finally attended. Twelve others dropped out at the last minute allegedly due to crises in their offices. The course consisted of short demonstrations and multiple role plays with instant feedback under the supervision of law partners and professional trainers.

All of the role plays were based on cases being handled by the law firm and its clients. The role plays repetitively simulated such typical negotiations activities as preparation of goals, offering a range of responses to an emotional party, and negotiating with a hard bargainer and a disorganized opponent. The role plays also drilled the participants in a twelve-step negotiation process. Allegedly, the instructors expressly avoided teaching “theory” and concentrated on modeling a range of skills.

Course C was also held over two days, at a prominent local university. Invitations were sent to other universities, police departments, law firms, government agencies, labor unions, and a number of international businesses. The cost was five hundred dollars (U.S.). Fifty-three people attended. Papers were summarized by presenters talking. Panel discussions were held on various topics, including the sociology and psychology of negotiation, diagnostic criteria for various types of negotiation, and varying negotiation practices allegedly used in different types of transactions, conflicts, and across different cultures. Eight articles were eventually published from those presented at the conference.

Are these three types of courses successes or failures? Based on what criteria? With what supporting evidence? As interpreted by whom?

It is easy to ensure success. Just lower expectations (as in negotiations). For example, lower expectations to these goals: first, pay the bills for the course, and second, ensure that the majority of participants “feel good” for at least two hours after the course is over.

But many participants in training courses are not willing to aim so low and at so few goals, even though, in “negotiation speak,” they may have a similar minimalist fallback set of goals if the course goes to hell. Most participants, teachers, and organizers have a longer and grander list of express or subconscious goals.

Many forests have been destroyed in order to classify and rank educational goals. One classic work worthy of frequent revisits is popularly known as “Bloom's taxonomy” after its author, Benjamin Bloom (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia 1956; see also Petter 1982; Ornstein and Hurkins 1988).

Bloom divides educational objectives into two broad categories, namely, knowledge based (the cognitive domain) and attitudinal (the affective domain). These categories are further broken down into a list of objectives that range from the very basic to the much more sophisticated. Table One summarizes Bloom's ladder of goals with an illustration of how each could apply to a negotiation or conflict management course.

Going beyond the twenty-one categories of knowledge summarized in Table One, Bloom's taxonomy also suggests a thirteen-step ladder, or taxonomy, of educational objectives relating to the “affective domain” or attitudes. These could also be set out in a chart with matching example goals from a negotiation course for each of the thirteen levels of attitude and emotion. For example, at one end of the taxonomy, a student who has just completed a course, conversation, or book is engaged with the subject, not “turned off,” and inherently curious to learn more. At the higher end of the attitude taxonomy, the student receives “an emotional response, kick or thrill” from learning in that field (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia 1956: 179).

Students, teachers, and organizers of negotiation and other conflict management courses can have many recurrent goals that can range up and down Bloom's taxonomy. For example, student goals can include: to get a day out of the office, to have a restful experience, to improve his or her negotiation skills, to earn a certificate of attendance, to meet influential people, to add an additional entry to a curriculum vitae, to respond to a crisis within an organization (e.g., critical and publicized feedback from clients), to attend a course conducted by a prestigious institution (regardless of content or learning), and to pass an exam.

Teachers' goals are also diverse and may include, consciously or subconsciously: to be paid, to receive positive feedback, to be rehired, to market books and videos, to take a trip, to gain contacts for future work, to gain status with colleagues, to imprint particular knowledge and skills, to stimulate curiosity and love of learning, and to learn from students (see Biggs and Tang 2007).

Organizers' goals overlap with those mentioned and also include: to make a profit, to have satisfied customers who will send friends to the next course, to enhance students' competence, and to satisfy mandatory professional development rules (see Howell Forthcoming).

When teacher and student goals are different, which they usually are, the negotiation course will become an ongoing negotiation itself. When competing goals remain unresolved, the course will usually be a disappointment. Conversely, teachers often avoid conflict by ignoring just how little is learned, except at the shallow end of the learning ecosystem (e.g., “we heard some interesting stories,”“we passed the exam”). Teachers and organizers of courses often have deep — some might say delusional — aspirational goals, while students have culturally acceptable shallow goals, both in aspiration and reality. Student goals, sometimes referred to as “the hidden curriculum,” will always overcome the formal curriculum, despite the anguish and delusions of the organizers and teachers.

Of course, the goals of teachers and certain participants may substantially overlap. Also, they sometimes move up Bloom's taxonomy of learning, or toward what John Biggs has called “deep learning,” both in aspiration and reality.

The higher, deep, and more enduring goals that aspirationally might be held by many people involved in a course include: to connect new learning to what is already known, to promote curiosity, to tolerate ambiguity, to gain practiced and enduring competence in at least one new skill, to know and be able to debate the most prominent ideas in the field, and to be surprised by, and develop respect for, the attitudes and behavior of colleagues. (I have seen this “high” goal achieved in many courses in which a succession of colleagues role play particular responses before the whole group.)

But how often are these deep goals really achieved?

Teachers, researchers, and students often comment that the system conspires against students achieving any deep learning or real understanding. “[T]he longer most undergraduate students (not all . . . ) stay in most tertiary institutions, the less deep and the more surface oriented they tend to become, and the more their understanding is assessment related. The tendency is almost universal” (Biggs 1999: 34–35).

For example, over the last forty years, I have regularly heard comments from students:

• “There is so much in the course; I have narrowed it down to what is in the exams.”

• “Most short courses consist of a lecturer talking and showing PowerPoint slides.”

• “I am not going to make a fool of myself in a role play.”

• “I have a lot of questions, but I am not going to interrupt the teacher.”

From teachers one might hear:

• “These students just want to be spoon-fed.”

• “I want to use the materials that are tried and tested.”

• “I find most of the students do not want to be stretched. They just want clear PowerPoints.”

• “The law/medical/architectural profession requires that we cover all this material.”

These stereotypical quotes exemplify what goes on in the teaching/learning environment, or what Biggs has helpfully labeled as the “teaching/learning ecosystem” (Biggs and Tang 2007: 18; see also Biggs 1990–91; Ramsden 2003). They indicate the many crocodiles and currents in every educational ecosystem that will often devour higher goals and leave emaciated survivors. Each ripple in the pond spreads throughout this ecosystem.

Biggs created a diagram to show the complex pond of ripples, causes, and effects in the ecosystem of learning, as shown in Figure One (Biggs 1990–91 at 137, reproduced with permission).

To repeat, higher or deeper learning goals will drown in most learning ecosystems. The system is more powerful than the motivation and behavior of even a superstar teacher.

In my experience, teachers are often astounded by how little students learn in any course. “But we covered that in class,” is the plaintive cry of the teacher when a student demonstrates profound ignorance on a particular topic. But the message sent is often not received. Or, if received, the message sticks only for the blink of an eye, or until assessment is over, whichever comes sooner. In an era of data deluge, these problems may intensify.

If, as in negotiation, a pattern of limited learning success is more common than a pattern of substantial learning success, what should a teacher/planner/organizer/goal setter in a negotiation course do to achieve better outcomes? The following are some possibilities.

First, aim high with a shotgun and hope that a higher and larger range of goals are achieved by a few motivated students. For example, expand the topics covered to include learning modules on such topics as language patterns, ethics, psychology, culture, alternative negotiation processes, micro-skills, standard hurdles and responses thereto, and legal regulation of negotiation behavior. This amounts to expanding course coverage, whereas many educational experts recommend to “slaughter the dragon, ‘coverage’ ” (Twining 1997: 190).

Second, try to change the learning ecosystem, which is no easy task, so that higher goals are more readily achievable by more students. For example, change the teacher, change the students, change the assessment, and change the openness to new ideas and behavior back at the head office or department.

Third, lower expectations and work hard to achieve at least certain minor goals for the majority of students, and importantly, to ensure that no damage or harm is done (see Freshman and Guthrie 2009 in this issue). For example, serve good food, provide comfortable seating, tell interesting stories, hand out neat materials, start and finish at culturally acceptable times, do not bore, and ensure that most students exit with the comment “I did not learn much, but at least it was fun and interesting” (“edutainment”). This approach has value because, Bloom would argue, it serves affective goals by encouraging a majority of students to become willing to hear more, rising on the ladder to curious and even climbing up to excited.

Fourth, test what each student already knows and assign that knowledge as value X. Then add items to the curriculum and work with each student individually to move each student to his or her X plus one (not X plus seven). For example, send out precourse written tests to determine existing knowledge; send out precourse questionnaires asking “What topic or skill from the following list would you like to learn about?” or record on film a basic salary negotiation with every student before a course begins. The instructor can also start the course with a demonstration and ask, “What one piece of this complex process would you like to practice?” Or halfway through the course, pause to redirect: “I have learned a number of things from you, and have been astounded at your depth of knowledge and practiced skill in the following areas. However, my perception is that there are gaps in these four areas. Do you agree? We will break into four groups and you choose your preference to practice A, B, C, or D” (see McAdoo and Manwaring 2009 in this issue).

Attempting to describe aspirational and realistic goals in any negotiation course, and for any individuals in such courses, is a humbling and often frustrating experience. What might be learned, by each individual, by what methods, in what order, in what environments, with what feedback? For how long will learning last, and how can any alleged achievements be measured? (See Movius 2008.)

Nevertheless, this is a worthwhile ongoing discussion that organizers, teachers, and students should have — before, during, and after a course. Such ongoing and painful attempts to describe realistic goals create ripples in the ecosystem of learning that push us further toward Biggs' deeper and Bloom's higher goals. If the majority of students acquire measures of curiosity (see Guthrie Forthcoming), enthusiasm, and love of learning, these will provide lifelong foundations long after the course is over.