teaching negotiation with a feminist perspective

Elaine M. Landry is assistant professor of management at Babson College, Babson Park, Mass.02457. Anne Donnellon is associate professor of management at Babson College.

0748-4526/99/0100-0021$16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation Journal January 1999 21

Teaching Ideas

Teaching Negotiationwith a Feminist Perspective

Elaine M. Landry and Anne Donnellon

Negotiation teachers encourage their students to be inventive, improveagreements, and push outward on the “pareto” frontier. Likewise, teacherscan improve their practice by seeking value, sometimes in other disciplines.In general, negotiation is taught through a combination of lectures withsimulation exercises and debriefings. Feminist pedagogy enhances this nor-mative model of teaching negotiation. This article links the traditionalmethod of teaching negotiation with four key principles of feminist peda-

gogy.

Negotiation courses continue to grow in popularity. They are a part of thecurriculum of most university professional programs and many undergradu-ate programs. In addition, negotiation training seems to be the ubiquitousoffering in most corporate training institutes. The success of such courses isdue, at least in part, to the increased awareness of conflict in the workplaceand of the requirements for effective negotiation of these conflicts.

Negotiation training has also become popular due to an emerging con-sensus about what constitutes the constructive handling of conflict (Kolband Putnam 1997). This shared understanding has led to a common empha-sis on the development of individual skills in negotiation. These skills aretypically developed through a normative approach that combines a concep-tual framework with extensive experiential learning. Indeed, theexpectations of participants are generally met by this paradigm.

However, there is mounting, albeit anecdotal, evidence that the typicalparadigm for teaching negotiation can be problematic in several ways. In thisarticle, we shall describe the typical pedagogy and identify several concernswe have with it; then, drawing on a feminist-theoretical framework, we shallpresent an alternative pedagogical approach.

The Typical ApproachThe typical contemporary approach to teaching negotiation, especiallywithin management curricula, has been to present a specific framework fornegotiating effectively and to provide opportunities for students to practiceand improve their individual ability to use the prescribed skills in “real-world” situations. Materials are usually selected by the instructor on the basisof their ability to illustrate the prescribed framework. Understanding of theframework is developed and refined through lectures and commentary bythe instructor.

Commonly, this approach includes case discussion, lectures and simula-tion exercises; the outcomes of the latter are scored or otherwise comparedacross individual participants and-or groups. Key learnings about the frame-work are reinforced in the debriefing of these exercises by focusing onspecific aspects of the interaction.

The conceptual framework that undergirds this normative approachemphasizes the transactional nature of negotiations and provides guidanceon maximizing one’s own self-interest. This paradigm postulates that toachieve self-interest, one must make an exchange with those with whomone is negotiating. The succinct prescriptions for negotiating in this wayaccount for much of the success of this approach.

The experiential pedagogy characterizing this paradigm fits well with theframework. Simulations have been especially effective in enhancing one’s abil-ity to identify self-interest and the underlying interests of others in the effort tocalculate good exchanges and deals. Good simulations provide extremely effi-cient opportunities for practice by creating concrete mutual experiences thatstimulate action by participants that reinforces their conceptual learning.

Despite the success of the normative approach to teaching negotiation, itis problematic in several ways. Generally, the instructional scheme that sur-rounds simulation experiences tends to place a premium on logic andrationality. Problems in negotiation are interpreted as the result of cognitivebias (Bazerman and Neale 1992). Students are, therefore, taught to be aware oftheir own biases and to take advantage of the biases of other negotiators. Bar-gainers are assumed to operate invariably out of self-interest, and so learn toassess inputs and outcomes of the parties concerned. The problem is thatnegotiations outside the classroom are rarely the objective transactions thatsimulations model. Students prepared well to handle those are often blindsidedby the effects of self-image and emotion on the behavior of all concerned.

This transactional focus of the dominant teaching model also ignoresother important outcomes of negotiation — specifically, relational outcomes.

22 Landry and Donnellon A Feminist Perspective

Negotiation Journal January 1999 23

As researchers who study the social construction and evolution of disputes inorganizations point out (see Kolb and Bartunek 1992), a pedagogy that prizesa single perspective and a narrow range of transactional outcomes fails toteach students about the most common form of negotiating, those that occurin the context of relationships. Subtly, the normative approach indicates thatrelations are the inputs, constraints, or instruments in the negotiation, ratherthan outcomes to be gained or lost. This implication can affect student per-ceptions of the importance of any but transactional outcomes.

A related problem occurs as a byproduct of the obvious need for effi-ciency when using simulations. Because of time constraints, the authors ofsimulations typically reduce the contextual complexity of most negotiations.The result of this simplification is that novice negotiators are unprepared toconsider how organizational politics, status, and emotion may influencetheir ability to realize desired outcomes. The role assumed by the instructorin the normative approach often reinforces this limitation.

Perhaps because learners place such a premium on improved skill,negotiation instructors often operate from an “expert” model. Knowledgeand expertise are disseminated by the instructor, with learners customarilyspeaking only in response to questions or to seek answers to their own.Most evident in the debriefing of simulations, this approach limits the poten-tial for learners to explore and exchange views fully on how their ownemotions or self-perceptions affect the process of their negotiation. Thus,the opportunity to learn from a more robust model of negotiations, one thatconsiders the specifics of the people as well as of the dispute, is missed. Theinstructor-centered learning experience is also problematic in that itunavoidably reflects the instructor’s own cognitive biases and emotionalmake-up. For students who are markedly different from the instructor (interms of culture, gender, race, or socio-economic status, for example), thechances of them being able to develop their own repertoire of negotiationstrategies and tactics are narrowed.

The difficulty of adapting generic strategies to one’s own personality, sta-tus, or social position is typically overlooked by the normative approach. Apedagogy that guides students in the analysis of how contextual and socialrealities reconfigure the general prescription is admittedly “messier.” At a min-imum, instructors must be comfortable with ambiguity as to the questions,viewpoints, and outcomes that may be generated. We have found, in fact, thatproviding opportunities to observe and discuss the effects of these realities inthe classroom has great benefits. Other pedagogical approaches might over-come some of the shortcomings of the normative teaching approach we havedescribed. Specifically, we argue one positive alternative is an approach toteaching negotiation that shares common roots with feminist theory.

Feminist TheoryWhat is feminist theory and how can it inform the teaching of negotiation?Although recent analyses recognize important differences among feminist the-

ories (Gray 1994; Harding 1986; Kolb and Putnam 1995), four core principlescan be gleaned from the path-breaking work that has been done in this area.

The first focuses on the critical nature of context to the understandingof social phenomena (see Northrup 1995; Warren and Cheney 1991). Thebasic argument is that behavior observed and interpreted in isolation willproduce very different findings from that which is examined in light of thecontext in which it occurs, particularly the social context. This principle rec-ognizes the role of relationship and interdependence in shaping bothbehavior and its interpretation. For instructors, the implication is thatexplicit attention is given to the context of the classroom itself, looking atthe process in addition to the content of the course. This involves carefuldesign of the course, attention to the reaction of individual students, andfacilitation of discussion in the class of the group process.

A second pillar of feminist theory is the recognition of multiple realities.This argument asserts that reality is essentially subjective and that one’smeanings result from social experience (Mustin and Maracek 1990. Thus“reality” varies according to one’s social position. Learning is enhanced byrecognition of multiple realities in human experience through a process thatcombines critical analysis of course materials and a synergistic examinationof the multiple perspectives on the material that students, among others,bring to the subject.

Thirdly, feminist theory asserts that the distribution of social power pro-foundly shapes the evaluation of experience, legitimizing and privilegingsome, at the expense of others. Power thus reinforces itself by defining notonly what constitutes knowledge, but also the rules for producing it, andparticipation in setting those rules and generating that knowledge (see, forexample, Calas and Smircich 1991; Ferguson 1984; Flax 1990; Gray 1994;Harding 1986). Instructors, therefore, must be prepared to redistributepower in the classroom in order to legitimate perspectives on the subjectmatter that social differences among students may otherwise suppress.Instructors may also need to share their power occasionally to create thecapacity and incentive for students to be proactive in shaping a rich, diversedialogue.

The fourth principle (and the underlying objective of feminist theory) isthe goal of redistributing social power and achieving social equity (Calas andSmircich 1991; Gray 1994, Flax 1987). One of the primary pedagogicalobjectives in the feminist classroom is to create some degree of socialchange as a result of the course. Therefore, the teaching must create a newunderstanding of social phenomena, as well as the ability for, and interest increating change.

These four principles of feminist theory are inconsistent with a peda-gogical approach based on the assumption that education is the transmissionof canonical knowledge by an expert to a group of novices who are notexpected to vary except in their command of the material. On the contrary,feminist theory has very different implications for teaching.



Teaching Negotiation with a Feminist PerspectiveHow would these pedagogical tenets be manifested in the teaching of nego-tiation? In our view, student learning can be enriched if course designsspecifically address the principles of feminist theory. We shall briefly discussideas for applying these tenets in each of the following areas: course materi-als, the instructional role, improved practice, and the learner experience.

Course materials should encompass a wider range of perspectives withparticular attention to exercises and discussions, which take account of rela-tional situations and concerns. Within this category, instructors need toconsider a broader mix of classroom events, including more frequent use ofstudent-designed case situations. When students share their own conflicts, ithelps to make visible what may remain invisible in exercises that focus pri-marily on the transactional perspective.

Materials reflecting a wide range of personal and professional situationsare increasingly available to instructors and students often resonate to well-chosen examples. Heavy reliance on course material generated outside thestudents’ personal experience, however, forecloses on the possibility fordeeper learning that occurs when their own cases are incorporated into thecourse. In addition, the iterative process of writing, evaluating, and dis-cussing these cases between instructor and learner significantly enhancesthe potential for personal learning.

The instructional role can shift away from an expert model through theinstructor’s decision to model inclusiveness. The instructor can work towardthis goal in a number of ways, such as: acknowledging that there are manyvalid interpretations and reactions to class events; a willingness to be vulner-able personally; and providing alternate paths for learner reaction — forexample, by offering a mix of assessment and feedback inputs on courseactivities throughout the course.

Instructors may also limit their individual control over learning out-comes and enhance inclusiveness by encouraging students to serve asconsultants and advisers in working on their personal conflicts together.This practice heightens student learning by exposing them to a range ofstrategic and analytic choices that may not be modeled by the instructor.Further, it provides opportunities for feedback and reflection about thelearner’s ability to engage in these roles.

As one goal of feminist pedagogy is to produce change, the negotiationinstructor should be particularly concerned with assisting learners withexperiences that allow them to emerge from the classroom with more confi-dence and a heightened ability to address social disparities. In addition tochoosing a wide spectrum of voices for study and discussion, instructors canalso increase the likelihood that they will evoke participation from a myriadof learners’ voices. Through assignments and in-class discussion, instructorscan provide opportunities for students to reflect on, and gain legitimacy for,their identity and their role.

Since access to these opportunities may not always be replicable in theclassroom, the instructor may also encourage students to seek opportunitiesto practice the manner in which they address real-world challenges to theirgender, race, and other identification characteristics. Students might beassigned to community service or other types of internships during thecourse in order to be able to report on these experiences and both test anddebrief their skills in a supportive atmosphere. In the absence of theseopportunities, guest speakers, readings and work in other media may beselected to close the gap in experience.

Finally, feminist pedagogy asserts that the classroom reflects process ina very tangible way. In practice, the instructor should work to achieve thisgoal by: engaging and maintaining a respectful relationship; generatingground rules with the group; and insuring that the process by which thecourse unfolds is explicit, discussed, and negotiated. Students have a similarresponsibility. Often, however, it takes students several sessions to engage ina fully interactive setting. The instructor’s orchestration of the early classeswhere “unfreezing” of existing attitudes and assessment of learner compe-tency takes place is particularly crucial. For example, if an instructor resiststhe temptation to provide prescriptions (in terms of either process or out-comes) early in the course, learners often become comfortably self-critical.Further, they are more likely to open themselves up to exploring and inte-grating new ideas. The resulting practice they develop is enriched throughperiods of self-reflection, appreciation of new ideas, and commitment tocontinuous learning.

Possibilities and Rewards of Teaching Negotiation with a Feminist PerspectiveAs instructors, we often encourage our negotiation students to aim for agree-ments which reflect a fully realized attempt to maximize joint interests. In sodoing, we urge them toward the “pareto frontier.” We counsel our studentsthat these results are only achievable by negotiators who are open in sharinginformation about themselves and who are tenacious in their efforts to incor-porate creatively the concerns of all parties (Lax and Sebenius 1986; Fisher,Ury, and Patton 1991).

Originally adapted from the utility concept in economics (and namedafter Vilfredo Pareto), many negotiation theorists use the notion of a “paretofrontier” (Lax and Sebenius 1986; Raiffa 1982; Fisher, Ury and Patton 1991;Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1993) to illustrate the degree to which an agreementhas maximized possible gains (see Figure One).

Using this concept as an overlay to our discussion is a useful way toillustrate the potential of the ideas we have presented. Figure Two, for exam-ple, shows where various outcomes related to instructor-learner interactionslie on the diagonal “pareto frontier.” We use this figure as an adapted versionof the “pareto frontier” graph to illustrate the assumptions described in this



brief essay, and, in particular, to illustrate the key features which affect arange of learning outcomes.

Figure 1Negotiator Outcomes Displayed on an Adapted Possibilities Frontier

Instead of representing the concerns of two constituencies, we havedesigned the essential tension to be the value placed on attention to substanceversus the value placed on attention to the instructor/learner relationship:Obviously, Point 0 represents the unfortunate convergence of inattention toeither, perhaps caused by instructor incompetence but certainly creatinglearner escape from the learning context. Point 1 illustrates that common ped-agogical elements (such as an acontextual framework, development of tacticalskill, and value-neutral instruction) often achieve minimal learning outcomes.In this design, the learner is restricted to an experience of assimilation — adop-tion of the instructor’s perspective and style. Point 2 illustrates a learningenvironment in which diversity is accepted and where learners can surfacetheir point of view but one in which there are no changes related to the tradi-tional authority structure of teacher and learner. In this scenario, learningoutcomes are compromised as further knowledge exchange may haveoccurred if the power dynamics were modified. Point 3 illustrates that learninggoals also remain insufficient when instructors focus too heavily on teachingstyle and accommodate learning needs to the exclusion of substance. Point 5illustrates an environment in which the learning process is blunted by an over-

A gains at B’s expense

Outcome reflects fully maximizedinterests for both parties

B gains at A’s expense

Compromise agreement

Agreement on minimally acceptableoutcome

No agreement alternatives

•5

•4

•3

•2

•1

BATNA

Gains for Negotiator B

BATNAGai

ns

for

Neg

oti

ato

r A

reliance on objective knowledge and the expert model of instruction. Finally,Point 4 illustrates that learning outcomes are maximized when instructors andlearners deliberately seek out and value the range of experiences and perspec-tives; when they collaborate in their endeavor to create personalizedknowledge; when transformational goals are entwined with content; and,when both parties actively seek to learn from — and with — each other.

Figure 2Learning Outcomes Displayed on Possibilities Frontier

As described here, the specific actions that theorists identify as effectivein moving negotiators toward the frontier mirror the characteristics of negotia-tion pedagogy as informed and guided by feminist principles. We should addthat many of these same principles from feminist pedagogy are also advocatedin the negotiation literature as the components that facilitate good agree-ments. For example, feminist pedagogy suggests that sharing the task oflearning about each other’s interests and that openness about experiencessupports learning. Additionally, feminist pedagogy advocates that techniquessuch as questioning, listening, testing perceptions, and making room for emo-tion, can assist instructors in shifting from a sole focus on their own expertiseand toward a collaborative and fuller exploration of the substance as well asthe student’s developmental needs in negotiation skill building.

In conclusion, linking feminist principles with theory that describes cre-ation of value in negotiation illuminates a path interested instructors can take

Instructor focus on prescribed modelsand role as expert. Learning outcomes insufficient.

Instructor/Learner outcomesmaximized. Teaching modelenhanced by feminist perspective.

Instructor accommodationto learner inputs/needs.Learning outcomesinsufficient.

Moderate learning outcomes.

Typical pedagogy. Instructor/Learnerachieve minimally acceptable learningoutcomes.

Instructor/Learner incompetence/escape

•5

•4

•3

•2

•1

BATNA

Attention to Instructor/Learner Relationship

BATNA

Att

enti

on

to

Co

urs

e Su

bst

ance

0



in the effort to become more effective teachers. Moving toward the “possibili-ties frontier” of learning outcomes is a complex enterprise. Partners ineducation, just as partners in negotiation, after all, engage in learning withouta road map of what opportunities for cooperative action there are to exploit.

There is a complex set of tasks to manage in the early phases of anylearning venture. Selecting the most effective learning tools — both contentand teaching strategies — is an organic process each time you engage it.Faulty moves in enacting routine instructional jobs (e.g., choosing when tointervene; question selection; or overly constructing situations to yield spe-cific lessons) may foreclose on private value for an individual and/or commonvalue for the group. And, although instructors bear more of the burden forcreating a forum that will unmask the learning possibilities, optimal resultsoccur only if there is an exchange of efforts by instructors and learners andonly if the learning exchange is congruent with instructional goals.

To summarize, our premise is that, while we are encouraging our stu-dents to pursue joint gains in their negotiation experiences, our pedagogyoften does not incorporate these principles with similar rigor. As a result,many learning gains are unrealized. By adopting feminist principles as aguideline for our teaching strategies, we are congruent with the negotiationprescriptives we espouse and, more importantly, we begin to explore thefrontier of deeper learning we aim to achieve.

REFERENCES

Bazerman, M. and M. Neale, 1991. Negotiating rationally. New York: The Free Press.Calas, M. B. and L. Smircich, L., 1990. Rewriting gender into organizational theorizing: Directions

from feminist perspectives. In New directions in organizational research and analysis,edited by M. I. Reed and M.D. Hughes. London: Sage.

Ferguson. K.E., 1984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple UniversityPress.

Fisher, R., W. Ury, and B. Patton, 1991. Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without givingin. 2d ed. New York: Penguin.

Flax, J. 1987. Postmodernism and gender relations in feminist theory. Signs 12(4): 621-643.———. 1990. Thinking fragments: Psychoanalysis, feminism, and postmodernism in the con-

temporary west. Berkeley: University of California Press.Gray, B., 1994. The gender-based foundations of negotiations theory. In Research on negotiation

in organizations, vol. 4, edited by R. Bies, R. Lewicki, and B. Sheppard. Greenwich, Conn.JAI Press.

Harding S., 1986. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Hare-Mustin, R.T. and J. Maracek, eds., 1990. Making a difference: Psychology and the construc-

tion of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Kolb , D. M. and J. Bartunek, J., eds., 1992. Hidden conflict in organizations: Uncovering

behind-the-scenes disputes. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.Kolb, D.M. and L.L. Putnam, 1997. Through the looking glass: Negotiation theory refracted

through the lens of gender. In Workplace dispute resolution, edited by S. Gleason. EastLansing: Michigan State University Press.

Lax, D. A. and J.K. Sebenius, 1986. The manager as negotiator. New York: The Free Press.Northrup, T., 1994. The uneasy partnership between conflict theory and feminist theory. Syracuse

University, 1994.Raiffa, H. 1982. The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Rubin, J.Z., D. Pruitt, and S.H. Kim, 1993. Social conflict: 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Warren, K.J. and L. Cheney, L., 1991. Ecological feminism and ecosystem ecology. Hypatia 6: 179-197.

teaching negotiation with a feminist perspective

Documents