Negotiation as Form

  • Raymond Smith
Chapter
Part of the Professional and Practice-based Learning book series (PPBL, volume 23)

Abstract

This chapter is the first of three that comprehensively outline and elaborate each of the dimensions of The Three Dimension of Negotiation framework. Drawing on a range of empirical data, it describes and explains a range of types or different forms of negotiation that workers engage in through their participative work practices. These forms enable the categorisation of workers’ personal practices as negotiation processes and accomplishments associated with the varying levels of purpose and outcome realisation enacted through work. Work is purposeful goal oriented activity and so the levels of purpose enacted and the degrees by which outcomes or goals are realised can become characteristics of different forms of negotiation. At a general level of analysis, workers are found to engage in (i) highly purposeful activity that secures objectives – what is referred to as telic negotiations, and (ii) incidental activity that does not tend to outcome realisation – what is referred to as atelic negotiations. At deeper levels of analysis, workers are found to engage in any and all of four contingent forms of negotiation that evidence contrasting high and low levels of intentionality and high and low levels of outcome realisation. The four contingent forms of negotiation are realised, discovered, concealed, and protracted, which in the analysis are categorised through the use of a personal work negotiation matrix. The matrix enables identifying how workers’ perceptions of their personal practices as negotiation forms compound to generate the socio-personal meanings and legacies workers use to make sense of their practices and the outcomes these accomplish.

References

  1. Archer, M. (2000). Being human: The problem of agency. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billett, S. (2001a). Learning in the workplace: Strategies for effective practice. Sydney, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  3. Billett, S. (2001b). Co-participation at work: Affordance and engagement. In T. Fenwick (Ed.), Sociocultural perspectives on learning through work (pp. 63–72). San Francisco: Josey Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Billett, S. (2001c). Learning throughout working life: Interdependencies at work. Studies in Continuing Education, 23(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billett, S. (2004). Learning through work: Workplace participatory practices. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 109–125). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Billett, S. (2006a). Relational interdependence between social and individual agency in work and working life. Mind, Culture and Activity, 13(1), 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Billett, S. (2006b). Work, subjectivity and learning. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Billett, S. (2008). Learning throughout working life: A relational interdependence between personal and social agency. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(1), 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etelapelto, A., & Saarinen, J. (2006). Developing subjective identities through collective participation. In S. Billett, T. Fenwick, & M. Somerville (Eds.), Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 157–178). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Fuller, A., & Unwin, L. (2004). Expansive learning environments: Integrating organisational and personal development. In H. Rainbird, A. Fuller, & A. Munro (Eds.), Workplace learning in context (pp. 126–144). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Greenhalgh, L. (2001). Managing strategic relationships. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachicotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Illeris, K. (2002). The three dimensions of learning. Roskilde, Denmark: Roskilde University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jarvis, P. (2004). Adult education and lifelong learning: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  15. Jarvis, P. (2006). Towards a comprehensive theory of human learning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society: Learning to be me. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (pp. 21–34). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Kolb, D., & Williams, J. (2003). Everyday negotiation: Navigating the hidden agendas in bargaining. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewicki, R. J., Saunders, D. M., & Barry, B. (2006). Negotiation (5th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.Google Scholar
  21. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2009). Chronicling the complexification of negotiation theory and practice. Negotiation Journal, 25(4), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow & Associates (Eds.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3–34). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  23. Rousseau, D. (2005). I-deals: Idiosyncratic deals employees bargain for themselves. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  24. Saner, R. (2005). The expert negotiator (2nd ed.). Leiden, MA: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Solomon, N. (1999). Culture and difference in learning. In D. Boud & J. Garrick (Eds.), Understanding learning at work (pp. 119–131). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zartman, I. W. (1988). Common elements on the analysis of the negotiation process. Negotiation Journal, 4(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Griffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations