Teaching Goals-Plans-Action Theory through a Negotiation Exercise

Gan, Ivan

doi:10.1080/17404622.2014.939673

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of goals and the varying significance between primary and secondary goals have led to research in message design and production (Samp and Solomon 2005). Scholars have applied this theory to contexts such as instructor-student interactions about disappointing grades (Henningsen et al 2011), whistleblowing of academic misconduct (Henningsen et al 2013), action-based pedagogy (Gan 2014), physician-patient communication (Sabee et al 2012), and discussions on sexual issues between heterosexual spouses (Coffelt and Hess 2015).…”

Section: Second Element (The Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars who study negotiations as constitutive events between disputants have primarily focused on resolving incompatible goals (see Gan 2014;Olekalns and Smith 2013). That means that negotiations are meaning-making interactions bounded by the network of actors involved.…”

Section: Why Do Negotiators' Feelings Matter To Vbm?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…I will introduce readers to examples that call for a VBM approach and how VBM taps into negotiators' personal values as a negotiation resource. Apart from its practical utility, VBM provides scholars with a parsimonious framework for future theorizing of and research on negotiations as a communicative behavior (Gan 2014). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Advancing a Distributive-Bargaining and Integrative-Negotiation Integral System: A Values-Based Negotiation Model (VBM)

Gan

2017

Social Sciences

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The proposed values-based negotiation model (VBM) agrees with and extends principled negotiation's recognition of personal values and emotions as important negotiation elements. First, building upon Martin Buber's existentialist treatment of religion and secularism, VBM centers on religion as one of many possible sources of personal values that informs respectful and mutually beneficial interactions without needing one to necessarily be religious. Just as one need not be a Buddhist or a Hindu to practice yoga, negotiators of any theological outlook can profit from a model grounded in broad, common tenets drawn from a range of organized religions. Second, VBM distinguishes feelings from emotions because the long-lasting and intrinsically stimulated effects of feelings have greater implications on the perception of negotiated outcomes. VBM negotiators view negotiations as a constitutive prosocial process whereby parties consider the outcome important enough to invest time and energy. Negotiators who use VBM appeal to the goodness of their counterparts by doing good first so that both parties avoid a win-lose outcome. This counterintuitive move contradicts the self-centered but understandably normal human behavior of prioritizing one's own interests before others' interests. However, when one appeals to the goodness of one's Buberian Thou counterparts, he or she stimulates positive emotions that promote understanding. Third, VBM provides a framework that draws upon an individual's personal values (religious or otherwise) and reconfigures the distributive-bargaining-and-integrative-negotiation distinction so that negotiators can freely apply distributive tactics to claim maximum intangible and tangible outcomes without compromising on their personal values or valuable relationships.

show abstract