1 / 13

Agreeing to Disagree: Perspective, Negotiation and Common Ground in Teams

Agreeing to Disagree: Perspective, Negotiation and Common Ground in Teams. P.J. Beers H.P.A. Boshuizen P.A. Kirschner. Marketing. Organisation science. Macro-economics. Wicked problems; e.g. Investment decision. Pe rs pe ct iv es. Unshared knowledge. Externalised knowledge.

maitland
Download Presentation

Agreeing to Disagree: Perspective, Negotiation and Common Ground in Teams

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Agreeing to Disagree:Perspective, Negotiation andCommon Ground in Teams P.J. Beers H.P.A. Boshuizen P.A. Kirschner

  2. Marketing Organisation science Macro-economics Wicked problems; e.g. Investment decision

  3. Perspectives

  4. Unshared knowledge Externalised knowledge Externalisation Shared knowledge Internalisation Common ground Negotiation Constructed knowledge Integration From unshared to constructed knowledge

  5. Negotiation Tool

  6. Research questions • Does the tool increase thinking about: • The status of a conversation topic • Other team members • Collaboration strategy • What thoughts do participants report about negotiation processes? • What thoughts do participants report about the tool?

  7. Pilot study

  8. Quantitative analysis • Unshared knowledge • External knowledge • Common ground; • Other team members; • Strategic planning;

  9. Qualitative analysis • Misunderstandings • Difference between understanding and agreement • Construction of knowledge • Difference in perspective • Commitment to common ground • Thoughts about the tool

  10. Results quantitative analysis

  11. Results qualitative analysis • Many misunderstandings • Participants grasp difference understanding vs. opinion • Participants learn together • Participants recognise differences in perspective • Commitment to grounding ranges from sheer manners to shared agreement • Commitment to grounding seems higher in groups with the tool

  12. Results about the tool • Record of common ground • Structuring the discussion • Using the board to ‘be useful’ • Groups without the tool sometimes don’t care about the board

  13. Conclusions • Setting offers enough opportunity for the tool to work • Participants are able to use the tool • Participants may have been more motivated to grounding with the tool

More Related