UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Planners and negotiation Csoti, George Paul 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A8_3 C76.pdf [ 5.65MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0097847.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0097847-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0097847-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0097847-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0097847-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0097847-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0097847-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0097847-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0097847.ris

Full Text

PLANNERS AND NEGOTIATION by GEORGE PAUL CSOTI .Sc. The University of Br i t i sh Columbia, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept th is thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA 1988 ® George Paul Csot i , 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date August 29, 1988  DE-6(3/81) i i ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes the role of negotiation theory and skills training in planning school curricula. This analysis is based on (1) a literature review focusing on planning, managing and negotiating and (2) a survey on negotiation and dispute resolution in North American planning schools. The literature review indicates that negotiation is a foundation skill for planners. Planning and managing are functions performed by planners. Both functions involve political decision making and political communication. Conflict situations are inevitable in political work environments, and negotiation is significant as a way to manage conflict. Hence, planners should have negotiating skills. However, very few planners have, at any stage of their development, been made aware of the range of negotiation theories, roles, strategies or tactics they might adopt. Prominent planning educators such as Baum, Forester, Schon and Susskind have raised a concern that many planners lack negotiating skills. They point to education as a solution. Based on the survey results, at least 25 percent of Canadian and 15 percent of American planning schools now offer one or more courses in these subjects. These courses began to emerge in 1981-1982. An analysis of the curricula materials collected indicates that these courses are based on the cooperative, problem solving approach advocated in two popular American books - namely: (1) "Getting to Yes" by Fisher and Ury and (2) "The Art and Science of Negotiation" by Raiffa. The main recommendation of this thesis is that planning educators recognize the need to equip planners with a basic level of negotiation theory and skill training. The development of negotiating skills depends on learning appropriate kinds of behavior. Learning is facilitated by practice and exposure to simulated problem solving situations. i i i . TABLE OF CONTENTS page ABSTRACT i i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES vi LIST OF FIGURES v i i LIST OF EXHIBITS v i i i LIST OF APPENDICES ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x PART ONE: THE DEMAND FOR NEGOTIATING SKILLS 1 Introduct ion 2 The Problem 3 Research Goal 4 Research Objectives 5 Organization of Topics 5 Limitat ions of Thesis 6 Research Procedures 7 Par t ic ipat ion in Courses and L i terature Review 7 Planning Curr icula Survey: U.S.A. 10 Survey Questionnaire: Canada 12 Col lect ion of Job Advertisements 13 Success in Planning 14 Wanted: Planner-Negotiator 15 PART TWO: PLANNING, MANAGING AND NEGOTIATING 20 Introduct ion 21 A Basic Model of Planning Practice 21 Key Terms Ident i f ied 22 i v . Key Terms Defined 24 Planning 24 Managing 24 Communicating 25 Decision Making 25 Negotiating 25 Persuading 26 Conf l ic t Managing 27 Interpersonal S k i l l s 27 Po l i t i ca l S k i l l s 28 The Planner as Decision Maker 29 The Planner as Communicator 31 The Planner as Persuader 32 The Planner as Negotiator 34 Practice Oriented Theory 38 The Planner as Manager 43 Interpersonal S k i l l s and Conf l ic t Managing 52 Concluding Comments 59 PART THREE: THE SUPPLY OF NEGOTIATION CURRICULA 61 Introduction 62 "A Source Book on Dispute Resolution in Planning School 63 Curr icula" Survey Data: U.S.A. 64 Questionnaire Results: Canada 67 Analysis 75 Course Content 76 Potential Problems 77 Simulated Negotiation Exercises 81 PART FOUR: SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 83 What is The Role of Negotiation in Urban, Regional and Resources Planning? 84 Discussion 86 How are Planning Schools Preparing Their Students For The Negotiating Sk i l l Requirements of Planning Practice? 88 Discussion 91 Assessing the Training Needs 92 Guidelines for Teaching Negotiation 93 A. Focus on Behavior 93 B. Relate Negotiation to Planning Context 94 C. Use Simulation Exercises 94 D. Provide Feedback 94 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 95 REFERENCES 96 APPENDICES 102 v i . LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Data: Job Advertisement Survey 17 Table 2: Major Roles fo r Planners 30 Table 3: Major Roles for Managers 44 Table 4: Year Negotiation Courses Were F i rs t Offered 66 to Planning Students: U.S.A. Table 5: Respondent C lass i f i ca t ion 71 Table 6: Questionnaire Responses to No. 3-4 72 Table 7: Questionnaire Responses to No. 5 73 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Negotiation as a Foundation S k i l l f o r Planners 23 Figure 2: Foundation Sk i l l s fo r Managers 45 Figure 3: S k i l l Mix Needed at Various Levels of Management 48 Figure 4: Management-Technical Mix 49 Figure 5: Optimal Level of Conf l ic t 53 Figure 6: Unsk i l l f u l Communication & Interpersonal Relations 57 Figure 7: Growth of Negotiation Curr icula in Canadian Planning Schools 74 v i i i . LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibi t 1: Career.Opportunity fo r Planner-Negotiator 16 Exhibi t 2: Susskind's Letter 65 Exhibi t 3: Cover Letter 69 Exhibit 4: Questionnaire 70 I X . LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix 1: Col lect ion of Job Advertisements 102 Appendix 2: Negotiation Curr icula Survey: Canadian Planning Schools 107 Appendix 3: Negotiation Curr icula Survey: U.S.A. Planning Schools 115 Appendix 4: Pract i t ioners ' Workshop 133 Appendix 5: NIDR 138 X . ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This thesis would not have been possible without the assistance of my supervisor, Tony Dorcey and my advisor, Henry Hightower. Special thanks to Brahm Wiesman who helped wi th the questionnaire and to Norman Dale for agreeing to be my external examiner. Thanks are also extended to a l l those who responded to the survey-questionnaire. PART ONE: THE DEMAND FOR NEGOTIATING SKILLS 2 INTRODUCTION This thesis is about one of the most important s k i l l s needed by planning pract i t ioners in order to be ef fect ive - namely, negot iat ion. V i r t u a l l y a l l planning processes are infused with negotiating processes. Planning p rac t i t i oners from every part of the world in a l l kinds of organizations, a l l do the same thing - negotiate. Negotiating is a basic human endeavor. However, in planning p rac t i ce , negotiated decis ion making can be an uncertain endeavor due to the complexity of problems faced and the l i m i t a t i o n s on time and in fo rmat ion . Research on negotiation in a planning context is warranted because public planning involves some of the most s ign i f icant and far-reaching decisions that can be made for communities and resources. Despite the existence of a growing body of theoret ical l i t e r a t u r e , curr iculum material and courses on negot ia t ion, there are those who remain skeptical and resist the idea that negotiation is a fundamental s k i l l requirement. This resistance stems "from too narrow a conception of negotiat ion" (Lax & Sebenius, 1986, 23). F i r s t , a broader perspective begins with the view that negotiat ion is a communication process aimed at reaching decisions. Perhaps the terms "communication" and "decision making" w i l l paci fy some of the resistance. Second, negot iat ion is often ident i f ied as the primary means of resolving disputes. Dispute resolution is current ly a popular topic in planning l i t e r a t u r e . A substantial amount of research exists re la t ing to the resolut ion of development, land use and environmental c o n f l i c t s . 3 Th i rd , negot iat ion is also u t i l i zed in non-dispute in teract ions. This aspect of negotiating has received less at tent ion in the planning l i t e r a t u r e . Non-dispute negot ia t ion involves the dec is ion making transact ions which occur on a dai ly basis. The emphasis here is on col laborat ion between people with common concerns. Negotiation is used to solve problems ( P r u i t t , 1981; Menkel-Medow, 1983). THE PROBLEM The signif icance of negotiated decision making in the governance of human and material resources should not be ignored. In pa r t i cu la r , I am concerned that many planners negotiate over a l i f e t i m e of pract ice without learning from the i r experience. The introduct ion of negotiat ing c u r r i c u l a i n planning education is r e l a t i v e l y new, since the ear ly 1980's, so most pract i t ioners lack formal t ra in ing . Despite the fact that negotiation is part of the repertoire of professional planners, very few planners have, at any stage of the i r development, been made aware of the range of negot iat ion theor ies, ro les, strategies or tac t ics they might adopt. Yet, as Donald Schon states: Professionals claim to contr ibute to social well being, put the i r c l ien ts ' needs ahead of the i r own, and hold themselves accountable to standards of competence and morality . . . professionals have been loudly c r i t i c a l of t h e i r own f a i l u r e . . . to meet reasonable standards of competence in the i r service to c l ients (1983, 11-13). Henry Hightower adds to th is discussion when he states that Professionalism refers to an at t i tude and a type of behavior . . . Perhaps the strongest connotation is that of competence . . . (1983, 109). 4 This raises an important issue. Does a " t r i a l and error" approach to negot ia ted dec is ion making maintain standards of p ro fess iona l competence? I b e l i e v e t h a t t h i s approach does not meet the speci f icat ions in the planning profession's code aimed at serving the "public in te res t . " Pr imari ly , I am concerned with the qual i ty of the so lu t ions and agreements that planning negotiat ions produce. What happens to those c l ients who represent the "errors"? The duties owed to the c l ien t or "public interest" d ictate that i t is time to recognize the need fo r standards in planning negotiations. Reasonable standards of competence can be maintained by providing planners with basic t ra in ing in negotiating s k i l l s . Planning schools have been c r i t i c i zed for the i r f a i l u r e to equip students wi th adequate communication, negot iat ion and interpersonal s k i l l s (Baum, 1983; Hodges, 1985; Hoch and Cibulskis, 1987; Forestor, 1987). A large part of the responsib i l i ty can be a t t r ibu ted to the broader educational system. Nonetheless, planning schools must take a more aggressive approach and teach the s k i l l s actual ly used in pract ice. RESEARCH GOAL The goal of th is thesis is to analyze the role of negotiation theory and s k i l l s t ra in ing in planning school cur r icu la . This goal is pursued by exploring the answers to the fol lowing research questions: 1) What is the role of negotiation in urban, regional and resources planning? 2) How are planning schools current ly preparing the i r students for the negotiating s k i l l requirements of planning? 5 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The strength of this thesis stems from the results of two main research streams: (1) a review of relevant literature focussing on negotiation in planning and (2) a survey-questionnaire used to collect information on negotiation and dispute resolution curricula in planning schools. Part Two of this thesis presents the findings of my first research stream. The objective for this section is: 1) To outline the roles of negotiation in planning, based on a review of relevant literature. Part Three and the Appendices of this thesis present the results of the second research stream. The main objective for this section is: 2) To present the findings of my survey on negotiation education in planning schools. ORGANIZATION OF TOPICS This study is organized into four parts. Part One introduces the topic of negotiation in the planning context. It identifies "lack of negotiating skills" as a potential problem area in planning practice. This section outlines the contents of this thesis and sets the stage for a theoretical discussion. The issue of success in planning is raised and then left. Part Two presents the results of a multidisciplinary literature review. The principal theme of this section is that planners who take on managerial roles or those interested in an active role in plan implementation are the most likely to require negotiating expertise. The 6 changing nature of planning work points to a need for basic t ra in ing in negotiating at a l l levels, including entry level planning posi t ions. Part Three provides the resul ts and analysis of my research on negotiation curr icu la in North American planning schools. This part of my study involved cooperating with the "National Ins t i t u te for Dispute Resolution" (NIDR). Details regarding the nature of my cooperation and the purpose of the NIDR are presented. This 1s followed by the resul ts of a survey of planning schools located in the United States of America. Next, the f indings of a questionnaire directed towards the "Association of Canadian Univers i ty Planning Programs" are presented. Curr icu la materials are compared and analyzed. Part Four provides a summary, conclusions and recommendations. I t focusses on the o r ig ina l "Research Goal" and addresses the o r ig ina l research questions. LIMITATIONS OF THESIS Decisions had to be made regarding the selection of theoret ica l perspectives to be presented in Part Two. Many of the topics which emerge in the discussion cannot be dealt with in the detai l they deserve. In Part Two, I t r y to establish the "theoret ical h istory" of negotiat ion in planning. A complete review of th is history would be another thes is . S i m i l a r l y , I review some of the more current l i t e r a t u r e but I only "scratch at the surface." At times I dig deeper. In Part Three my research provides a useful source of in format ion on negot iat ion in planning school c u r r i c u l a . However, Part Three f a l l s short of being a guide on "how to teach 7 negot iat ion." This thesis provides useful insights which could improve negotiat ing s k i l l s . However, i t is not meant to be a guide on "how to negot iate." RESEARCH PROCEDURES The research procedures used in th is project include: (1) formal p a r t i c i p a t i o n in negot iat ion and c o n f l i c t reso lu t ion courses at the graduate l e v e l , ( 2 ) pa r t i c i pa t i on in an executive level workshop on environmental c o n f l i c t reso lu t ion , ( 3 ) an extensive mu l t id isc ip l inary l i t e r a t u r e review with an emphasis on planning, negot iat ion, management and communication, ( 4 ) the design and administration of a questionnaire on negotiation curr icu la in Canadian planning schools, ( 5 ) completion of a survey on planning school curr icu la from the United States of America, ( 6 ) cooperat ion on my par t wi th the National I n s t i t u t e of Dispute Resolution (NIDR) by providing copies of my survey for use in "A Source Book on Dispute Resolution In Planning School Curr icula," and (7) a min i -survey on career opportunit ies in planning requir ing negotiating s k i l l s . Consequently, t h i s thesis is an in tegra t ion of several re la ted research streams which were developed in para l le l progression. In order to gain a better understanding of th is study and i t s f indings i t is clear that a more elaborate description of research methods is necessary. The resul ts of a research project are no better than the methods used to obtain them. For th is reason a re la t i ve ly detai led explanation of my research methodology is provided for those who are interested. Participation in Courses and Literature Review The in te l lec tua l roots of th is thesis include the fol lowing courses 8 at The University of B r i t i sh Columbia: (1) Planning 532: Planning fo r Natural Resources Management, (2) Planning 550: Directed Studies (on Organizational and Management Theory), (3) Planning 502: Planning Theory and (4) Commerce 323: Human Resources Management. I completed these courses during the 1984-85 univers i ty session. These courses provided me with a theoret ical foundation as well as hands-on experience in practice negotiation simulations. Once I had iden t i f i ed negotiation as a general f i e l d of in terest , I began to develop a more speci f ic research focus. Two things had become evident to me: (1) my classroom experiences, studies and practice negotiat ions, improved my capacity to communicate, and (2) in order for me to become a successful planner-manager I needed more t r a i n i n g in oral communication and negot iat ion. Consequently, my research began to focus on communication-negotiation education. In the f a l l and winter of 1985, I took part in the only course offered at U.B.C. that was completely concerned with my area of in te res t , "Law 469: Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Seminar." Although the emphasis was on negot iat ion in legal p rac t i ce , the course presented general pr inciples governing the negotiation process. Course materials offered a wide range of negotiating approaches and techniques which could be tested during the numerous pract ice simulations. A good deal of emphasis was placed on the theory and pract ice of t rad i t i ona l legal n e g o t i a t i o n . H i s t o r i c a l l y , lega l n e g o t i a t i o n theory emphasizes competitive gain and a more adversarial approach, i . e . , "how to win a negotiat ion" (Edwards & White, 1977). In March 1986, another investment in th is project was made by me 9 when I attended an executive level seminar on "Environmental Conflict Resolution." The seminar was offered as a "progressive learning" opportunity for "continuing management development" by the Banff Centre School of Management. Planning educators Audrey Armour of York University and Tony Dorcey of Westwater Research Centre (U.B.C.) were acknowledged for t h e i r assistance in the design of this course (see Appendix 4). The seminar was directed at senior resource managers (public and private sectors) as well as environmental interest groups and those involved in community development. An examination of the student roster reveals that close to 30 percent of the participants could be called planning practitioners (7 out of 25 students). The six-day program was divided into two parts: (1) Reaching Agreement: The Workshop and (2) The Seminar. My own participation was l i m i t e d to the f i r s t three days of the program, a workshop on the p r i n c i p l e s and practice of environmental negotiation. This intensive learning experience provided me with a sound grasp of c o n f l i c t resolution and c o n f l i c t management principles. The workshop involved participation i n l e c t u r e s , in class and a f t e r class reading, discussions and a negotiation exercise developed by the Harvard Negotiation Project. On the f i n a l day of the workshop I had an opportunity to meet with Howard Raiffa, Professor at the Harvard Business School and the Kennedy School of Government (Public Administration and Planning School). Raiffa i s well known for his role in the Harvard Negotiation Project and his book t i t l e d "The Art and Science of Negotiation." Professor Raiffa provided me with some useful suggestions regarding n e g o t i a t i o n 10 1 i terature. The Banff seminar emphasized a more contemporary approach to negotiation and con f l i c t resolut ion. Bargaining for j o i n t mutual gains and cooperation was emphasized over the more t rad i t iona l competitive approach. A considerable por t ion of Part Two is based on l i t e r a t u r e and materials I was exposed to during my par t ic ipat ion in these graduate and executive level courses. The insights gained through formal course work were most useful in the preparation of th is thesis. Exposure to a vast array of simulated negot ia t ion exercises as wel l as an extensive select ion of negot iat ion related theory has influenced my choice and treatment of topics. Planning Curricula Survey: U.S.A. Another research technique used was the survey questionnaire, a standard feature of social science. Two separate surveys were conducted: (1) the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of ex i s t i ng negot ia t ion re la ted course work available at a select number of planning schools located in the United States, and (2) an invest igat ion of negot iat ion re lated course work available through the "Association of Canadian Planning Schools." My i n i t i a l e f fo r ts focused on the exploration of bargaining related education in U.S. planning schools. Anthony Dorcey, my research advisor, helped me to ident i fy several academicians with a keen interest in th i s area. In November 1985, I prepared and sent le t te rs to Professors: (1) Lawrence Susskind (Planning, M . I .T . ) , (2) Jef f rey Rubin (Psychology, Tu f t s ) , and (3) Jerome Kaufman (Planning, Wisconsin-Madison). 11 Lawrence Susskind, the acting Director of Harvard's Program on Negot ia t ion (an i n t e r - u n i v e r s i t y consortium to improve the theory pract ice of con f l i c t resolut ion) , was able to provide me with a l i s t of 11 American planning schools known to have negot iat ion courses (see Exhibit 2 ) . Furthermore, Susskind suggested that I contact Bob Jones of the National Ins t i tu te for Dispute Resolution (NIDR) in Washington, D . C , to see i f there were others. Jef f rey Rubin responded to my inquiry by sending a copy of the "DISPUTE RESOLUTION DIRECTORY: Boston Area Courses & Internships 1985-1986" (compiled by The Program on Negot iat ion at Harvard) . This d i rectory l i s t s over 50 courses on con f l i c t resolut ion and negot iat ion. Numerous internship opportunities are also l i s t e d . Professor Harvey Jacobs (University of Wisconsin-Madison, Planning) responded for Jerome Kaufman. Jacobs sent me course out l ines , reading l i s t s and a useful commentary. Returning to Professor Susskind's response (Exhibit 2 ) , each of the 11 planning schools were sent individualized le t te rs in February 1986, describing the nature of my study. I was interested in f inding out when negotiation course work was f i r s t offered and I asked for course out l ines and reading l i s t s f o r courses tha t had a subs tan t ia l emphasis in negot iat ion, con f l i c t resolut ion or mediation. Furthermore, I t r i ed to s o l i c i t general comments regarding th is type of curriculum (see Appendix 3 for sample l e t t e r ) . By Apr i l 1986, I had received 5 responses out of 11 le t te rs and I s t i l l had the materials Jacobs sent from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Consequently, I had collected useful materials from 6 planning 12 schools: (1) Harvard, (2) Massachusetts Ins t i tu te of Technology, (3) U.C. Berkeley, (4) Hawaii, (5) Florida State and (6) Wisconsin-Madison. While carrying out th is survey, i t became evident that NIDR was also i n i t i a t i n g a s i m i l a r study. NIDR describes i t s e l f as a p r i v a t e , nonprofi t grant making technical organization. I t s pr incipal business is to f a c i l i t a t e promising research in order to improve the pract ice of d ispute reso lu t ion ( l i nk ing theory and research to p r a c t i c e ) . The Ins t i t u te has provided grants to planning facu l t y , research fel lowships to planning doctoral students, sponsored the development of teaching materials and textbooks with a planning emphasis. Telephone cal ls were made to Bob Jones of NIDR in Washington, D . C , and to Professor Tom D i n e l l , chairman at the Universi ty of Hawaii's Department of Urban and Regional Planning. Professor Dinel l had been asked by NIDR to produce a volume of reading l i s t s and course out l ines re la t ing to con f l i c t resolution as taught in graduate planning schools. I agreed wi th his request to share the materials that I had pulled together. The NIDR study t i t l e d "A Source Book on Dispute Resolution in Planning School Cur r i cu la " was released in September 1987 wi th an acknowledgment to my contr ibut ion. F ina l ly , in January and February of 1988, telephone ca l ls were made to Professor Raiffa in Cambridge, Massachusetts. These ca l ls were made to determine when negotiating curr icula was f i r s t available to planning students at the Kennedy School of Government (Harvard). Survey Questionnaire: Canada In March 1986, Brahm Wiesman, then Director of the School of 13 Community and Regional Planning at U.B.C, provided assistance with the design and implementation of a quest ionnaire d i rec ted towards the "Association of Canadian University Planning Programs" (see Appendix 2 fo r complete l i s t ) . The questionnaires were mailed to the Directors of each planning school wi th a cover memorandum by Professor Wiesman (Exhibit 3 ) . By the end of Apr i l 1986, eight schools had responded to the survey. The f i na l response rate was nearly 65 percent, i . e . 11 out of 17 (see Appendix 2 for l i s t of respondents). No fur ther attempt was made to contact the six non-responding schools which included a l l three of the French speaking univers i t ies (Laval, Montreal and Quebec) as well as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg. Had I taken the time to t ranslate the questionnaire into French, I might have earned a few more r e p l i e s . However, the f a i l u r e of these schools to respond does not seriously af fect the findings of th is pro ject . Quest ions 1 & 2 were designed to q u a l i f y the respondents. Negotiat ion course content can be found packaged under a var iety of course of fer ings. Questions 3 & 4 were aimed at obtaining background information. Question 5 was an attempt to prospect for candid comments regarding negotiation theory and s k i l l t ra in ing . Col lect ion of Job Advertisements This por t ion of my study involved co l lec t ing job advertisements which represented employment opportunit ies for qual i f ied planners with negotiating expert ise. The objective was to col lect ads which e x p l i c i t l y stated that negotiating s k i l l s were needed. These ads are increasingly common. Appendix 1 provides several examples. Eight ads were col lected 14 in t o t a l . Exhibit 1 (page 16) is the most recent ad. Ads were taken from the "Career Opportunities" sections of "The Vancouver Sun" (6 ads) and "The Globe and Mail" (2 ads). The ads represented an e x p l i c i t demand for ten planning positions with negotiating s k i l l s requirements. Most of the ads are from 1988 (3) and 1987 (3) . One ad was col lected for 1986 and one for 1985. The ads were collected on a casual and infrequent b a s i s ; consequent ly, t h i s research is informal and provides only tentat ive evidence. Nonetheless, the results and analysis provide some interest ing ins ights. The fol lowing discussion on "Success" serves as an introduct ion to the f indings of the job survey described here. SUCCESS IN PLANNING I t has been said tha t prenegot ia t ion planning or preparat ion, coupled with knowledge of the subject matter being negotiated, is the key to successful negotiation (Rai f fa , 1982; Marsh, 1984; Morrison, 1985). I believe that negotiating s k i l l s are the key to a "successful" planning pract ice, however subjective that term might be. One measure of success is based on performance ra t ings, usually by superiors. Another approach is based on managerial and salary levels (Klaus & Bass, 1982). In fac t , success is frequently measured in terms of higher levels and higher sa la r ies . Al lan Hodges (1985), in his commentary on "Career Advancement in Spite of Planning Education," asks us t o : Consider the s k i l l s requ i red f o r higher s a l a r i e d jobs a d v e r t i s e d in recent issues of the American P lann ing Association's Job Mart - some paying more than $70,000 a year: • strong organizing and direct ing s k i l l s ; 15 • wr i t ten /ora l communication s k i l l s ; • knowledge of finance, contract coordination, and negot iat ion; • supervision of t ra in ing and technical assistance s k i l l s ; • substant ia l background in computer a p p l i c a t i o n s , f i s c a l impacts, market analysis, real estate, f inancia l incent ives; • se l f s ta r te r ; • manager; and • motivator. A few planning education degree programs equip the i r graduates with such s k i l l s , but not a l l do; i f planners acquire these s k i l l s at a l l , they do so by learning on the job. Some of the top planning jobs go to nonplanners because they already have the special s k i l l s required. (1985, 4 ) . Hodges' a r t i c l e on "Career Advancement" makes several points: (1) some top planning jobs go to nonplanners; (2) negotiation is among the s k i l l s required for the top planning jobs in the U.S.A.; (3) management and communication s k i l l s are essent ia l ; and (4) many planners acquire these s k i l l s on the job. What about Canada? Does the job market in Canada re f l ec t these f ind ings? Hodges' a r t i c l e s st imulated my own research on career opportunit ies available in Canada. The results and analysis of my "Job Advertisement Survey" fo l low. WANTED: "PLANNER-NEGOTIATOR" As already noted here in the discussion on research methods, th is study examines 10 career opportunit ies. Exhibit 1 is a sample of the most recent advertisement (see Page 16). This ad serves as a prime 16 SCARBOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT SENIOR PLANNER $42,160-$52,700 C o m m u n i t y P lann ing Div is ion requ i res a Senior P lanner to reso lve d e v e l o p m e n t app l i ca t ions in the Ci ty. The work load is p r i m a r i l y redeve lopmen t , in tens i f ica t ion, d ivers i f i ca t ion of sma l l c o m m e r c i a l s i tes on m a j o r r o a d s ad jacent to es tab l i shed low dens i ty n e i g h b o u r h o o d s . The cha l lenge is to ba lance the in terest of owner , ne ighbours , c o m m u n i t y and city in the shor tes t poss ib le t ime, wh i l e ass is t ing each c o m m u n i t y to deve lop a consensus on h o w c h a n g e shou ld be m a n a g e d and d i rec ted in the i r a r e a . Ski l ls R e q u i r e d : • Techn ica l and " c o m m o n s e n s e " repor t i ng and s p e a k i n g • P r o b l e m s o l v i n g , nego t ia t ing , p resen t ing < • S t rong u r b a n d e s i g n and zon ing e x p e r i e n c e Qual i f i ca t ions : • Gradua te d e g r e e in p lann ing , a rch i tec tu re o r in a re la ted f ie ld w i th 3 years p ro fess iona l expe r ience p re fe rab ly in an u rban context o r an u n d e r g r a d u a t e d e g r e e in p lann ing , a rch i tec tu re or in a re la ted f ie ld and 3 to 5 y e a r s expe r ience • E l ig ib le for C.I.P. m e m b e r s h i p . F o r w a r d r e s u m e in con f idence by Apr i l 11, 1988, to the D i rec tor o l S la t t ing, City of S c a r b o r o u g h , 150 B o r o u g h Dr ive, S c a r b o r o u g h , On ta r io M1P 4N7. NOTE: We wish to thank all the applicants who will apply for this position but we must advise that applications will not be acknowledged. Applicants to be interviewed will be notified by April 29. 1988. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER CITY OF SCARBOROUGH * OTflARJC EXHIBIT 1: Career Opportunity for Planner/Negotiator Note: This is the most recent of the 8 ads collected ( i . e . , th is is ad no. 1 from Table 1). See Appendices for 7 more. 17 Table 1. Job Advertisement Survey Source Date Job T i t l e Sk i l l s Qual i f icat ion Salary 1 GM 24/03/88 Senior Planner Scarborough, Ont. N,C Planning Architecture Related 42,160-52,700 2 VS 12/03/88 Senior Land Off icer Yellowknife, N.W.T. N.M Land Mgmt. Related 40,149+ 3 VS 06/01/88 Director Development Department of Tourism Whitehorse, Yukon N,M,C Planning Commerce Bus. Admin. 48,365-62,182 4 VS 05/12/88 Development Planner Vancouver, B.C. N,C Architecture Planning 36,688-42,552 5 GM 26/11/87 Principal Planner Scarborough, Ont. N,M,C Planning Architecture 44,780-55,975 (2) Senior Planners Scarborough, Ont. N,M,C Planning Architecture 40,540-50,675 6 VS 24/01/87 Deputy Director of Planning and Development Services Surrey, B.C. N,M Planning N.I 7 VS 20/09/86 Land Use Special ist Renewable Resources Whitehorse, Yukon N,M,C Resource Mgmt. Environmental Impact 41,153-47,990 8 VS 02/11/85 Senior Development Planner Vancouver, B.C. N,M Architecture Planning 42,696-50,916 Note: N = Negot iat ion, M = Management or Administrat ion and C = Communication Note: Ads 1, 4, 5 & 6 a l l require CIP or PIBC E l i g i b i l i t y 18 example of what I found. Along with other essential requirements, i t e x p l i c i t l y asks for a planner with negotiating s k i l l s . The remainder of these ads are also worth examination. However, Table 1 (page 17) provides a convenient summary of the source, date, job t i t l e , s k i l l s and qua l i f i ca t ions required and the salary range. This summary of raw data focuses on three s k i l l s : negotiat ing, managing and communicating. These s k i l l requirements c lear ly emerged as being the most requested. Based on th i s data, the fol lowing observations are worth noting: • 10/10 of these positions required negotiating s k i l l s ; • a l l of these positions involved working for a government body, i . e . , these were a l l public sector jobs; • these posit ions were senior or managerial with salaries ranging between $35,688 - 62,812 with an average salary of approximately $46,000; • 8 of the p o s i t i o n s had planning s p e c i f i e d as a p re fe r red qua l i f i ca t i on ; • 8 of the positions had management or administration requirements; • 7 of the positions had e x p l i c i t communication requirements and ad no. 1 tasks for reporting and speaking ( to ta l 8/10); • 6 of the pos i t ions had spec i f ied a rch i tec tu re as needed or acceptable; and • 6 of the positions had requirements for membership or e l i g i b i l i t y in the Canadian Ins t i tu te of Planners (CIP) or PIBC. Once aga in , the f i n d i n g s based on t h i s in formal survey are ten ta t i ve . However, the data and findings are not without some value. This research provides j u s t i f i c a t i o n to go fur ther . This survey and the 19 Hodges a r t i c l e point to some consistent patterns which can be observed in both the Canadian and American job market for planners. One thing is c e r t a i n , the ads are evidence of a demand fo r p lanners-negot iators. Another observation is that top, senior or managerial jobs are more l i k e l y to require negotiating expert ise. Perhaps t h i s job survey raises more questions than i t answers. D is t inc t patterns seem to emerge. What is specialabbut the re lat ionship between planning, managing, communicating and negotiating s k i l l s ? My answer to t h i s query fo l lows. In Part Two, I concentrate on t h i s re lat ionship and explore other related topics. PART TWO: PLANNING, MANAGING AND NEGOTIATING 21 INTRODUCTION Negotiations do not take place within a vacuum. They are conducted under a system of law and wi th in a par t i cu la r economic, cul tural and p o l i t i c a l framework . . . Knowledge of that environment and the ab i l i t y /w i l l ingness to apply that knowledge are therefore essential to the achievement of a successful outcome . . . (Marsh, 1984, 225). The main question explored in th is part of the thesis is "What is the ro le of negotiation in Urban, Regional and Resources Planning?" Part Two provides an overview of one major role for planners - the role of planner as negotiator. The basic argument advanced in th is section of the thesis is that negotiation is a foundation s k i l l for planners. The reasoning or logic underlying th is assertion is outl ined below: • Planning and managing are functions performed by planners; • Planning and managing involve p o l i t i c a l decis ion making and p o l i t i c a l communication; • Conf l ic t s i tuat ions are inevitable in p o l i t i c a l work environments; • Negotiation is a major tool for regulating and resolving c o n f l i c t ; • Hence, "professional planners" need negotiating s k i l l s in order to f u l f i l l the requirements of the job. A BASIC MODEL OF PLANNING PRACTICE Figure 1 i d e n t i f i e s the top i cs to be considered here. I t i l l u s t r a t e s a basic model of p lann ing p r a c t i c e which inc ludes "negotiat ion as a foundation s k i l l . " The model summarizes the two main s k i l l categories needed for ef fect ive practice - namely: (1) technical s k i l l s and (2) interpersonal and p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s (Baum, 1983). The main 22 focus of t h i s discussion i s on the "interpersonal and p o l i t i c a l " category. KEY TERMS IDENTIFIED Including the core dimensions planning and negotiation, I have iden t i f i e d nine key terms or s k i l l variables. They are: (1) Planning, (2) Managing, (3) Communicating, (4) Decision Making, ( 5 ) Negotiating, (6) Persuading, (7) Conflict Managing, (8) Interpersonal S k i l l s and (9 ) P o l i t i c a l S k i l l s . Clearly there i s some overlap in the s k i l l variables or key terms considered relevant. This i s intentional. It i s the addition of each one of these parts which w i l l bring together my argument that negotiation i s an essential planning t o o l . F i n a l l y , the basic underlying question which I attempt to address in t h i s part i s , "Why should negotiation theory and s k i l l t r a i n i n g be included in planning curricula?" This i s the underlying issue behind my focus on negotiation and i t s t h e o r e t i c a l or p r a c t i c a l linkages to planning. Figure 1 Negotiation as a Foundation Skill COMMUNICATING & DECISION MAKING TECHNICAL SKILLS INTERPERSONAL & POLITICAL SKILLS INVOLVES: INVOLVES: INFORMATION NEGOTIATING DATA PERSUADING TOOLS CONFLICT MANAGING 24 KEY TERMS DEFINED The following discussion attempts to clarify the definitions adopted in this thesis. Each one of the following concepts is complex and dynamic. Therefore, some simplification or generalization is necessary. Planning A plan is a decision with regard to a course of action (Banfield, 1955). Planning is a future oriented process of decision making for action, directed at achieving goals by preferable means (Dror, 1963). Planning is justified by a faith in the abilities of man to control or manage his or her environment and to influence his or her destiny through rational decision making (Friedman, 1966). Planning is also concerned with present problems. Planning involves having to deal with uncertainty and incomplete information. Finally, planning is more than just an expression of hope. Some importance is attached to the achievement of goals (Minnery, 1985). Managing The term management refers to the process of efficiently getting activities completed with and through other people (Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). Management is the process of planning, organizing, leading and controlling the efforts of others. It involves the use of resources to achieve stated goals. "A good definition of management is the process through which managers assure that actual activities conform to planned activities" (Stoner, 1982, 592). A manager's performance can be measured in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to minimizing the costs of resources used, i.e., getting more output for a 25 given input. Effectiveness refers to the a b i l i t y to choose appropriate object ives and the a b i l i t y to achieve goals (Stoner, 1982; Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). Communicating Communication can be defined in a number of ways. Probably the most relevant de f i n i t i on for the purpose of th is study i s , "communication is the verbal interchange of thought or idea" (Hoben, 1954). However, communication is much more than verbal interchange, i . e . , i t is "the t ransmission of in fo rmat ion , idea, emotion, s k i l l s e tc . by use of symbols-words, p ictures, f igures, graphs etc. I t is the act or process tha t i s usual ly ca l led communication" (Berelson & S te iner , 1964). Communication is a process by which people attempt to share meanings through symbolic messages (Stoner, 1982). Decision Making Decision making is a process in which a choice is made between two or more a l ternat ives. Rational decision making implies that the decision maker has a clear goal and that a l l the steps in the process consistent ly lead toward the selection of an al ternat ive that w i l l maximize that goal (Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). Negotiating Negot iat ing or bargaining is a communication process aimed at reaching decisions. There is a tendency to use the word "bargaining" in s i t u a t i o n s where negot iators approach each other as competitors or opponents. "Negot ia t ion , " on the other hand, may be viewed as an 26 a l t e r n a t i v e to "bargain ing," i . e . , both par t ies seek to arrange an agreement which maximizes benefits to each par t ic ipant . Negotiation and bargaining are also used synonymously (Dorcey and Riek, 1987). These terms are used interchangeably in th is thesis. Because the concept of "negotiat ion" covers a broad scope, i t is useful to explore some of the varying perspectives. Negotiation can be defined in a number of ways. Negotiation i s : • a basic means of gett ing what you want from others. I t is a back-and-forth communication designed to reach agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981, x i ) . • a l l cases in which two or more part ies are communicating each fo r the purpose of influencing the other 's decision (Fisher, 1983, 150). • a process of potent ia l ly opportunistic interact ion by which two or more people, with some apparent c o n f l i c t , seek to do better by j o i n t l y decided action than they could otherwise (Lax & Sebenius, 1986, 361). • a process by which a j o i n t decision is made by two or more par t ies. The part ies f i r s t verbalize contradictory demands and then move towards agreement by a process of concession making or search for new alternat ives (P ru i t t , 1981, 1) . • s i tuat ions in which two or more part ies recognize that differences of interest and values exist among them and in which they want (or are compelled) to seek compromise agreement through negotiat ion (Rai f fa , 1982, 7) . Persuading Persuasion is a communication process in which the communicator seeks to e l i c i t a desired response from his or her receiver. I t is a mechanism where each party t r i es to change the other par ty 's perceptions and object ives. Al l communication could be considered persuasive since communicat ion i n v o l v e s the at tempt to win a response to the 27 communicator's ideas (Anderson, 1971; Minnery, 1985). Conflict Managing Confl ict refers to perceived incompatible differences resu l t ing in some form of interference or opposition (Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). I t has been defined as "two systems (persons, groups, organisations, nations) are in con f l i c t when they interact d i rec t l y in such a way that the actions of one tend to prevent or compel some outcome against the resistance of the other" (Katz & Kahn, 1978, 613). C o n f l i c t managing invo lves both r e g u l a t i o n and r e s o l u t i o n . Regulation refers to an attempt to d i rect or control c o n f l i c t s i tuat ions using various con f l i c t handling mechanisms. Resolution refers to the act of resolving or ar r iv ing at a decision. Interpersonal Ski l l s Interpersonal s k i l l is the a b i l i t y to get along with and to motivate others (Stoner, 1982). The focus here is on interpersonal interact ions that are face-to-face. In these cases, the interpersonal re lat ionship has important imp l ica t ions f o r the e f fect iveness of communication (Whetten & Cameron, 1984). I n e f f e c t i v e communication, t h a t i s communication that is insensit ive or abrasive reduces the p o s s i b i l i t y of a posi t ive interpersonal re lat ionship. Individuals may become offended, may stop l is ten ing to one another and may disagree with one another as a r e s u l t of i n e f f e c t i v e in terpersonal communication. In terpersonal problems generally lead to rest r ic ted communication, inaccurate messages, and misinterpretat ions of meanings. Effect ive interpersonal communication is achieved by attempting to 28 focus on accurate message delivery and trying to enhance the relationship by the interaction (Whetten & Cameron, 1984). P o l i t i c a l S k i l l s Political skill is the ability to motivate and influence others. Interpersonal skill is a prerequisite for political skill. Negotiating, decision making, problem solving and interpersonal interactions are considered to be "common political situations" (Lee and Lawrence, 1985, 168). The term "politics" is used by many planners to refer to decision making based on bargaining and organized interests. "Politics" in planning includes "explicitly political relationships among elected officials and interest groups" and "office politics" which occur in "normal organizational matters" (Baum, 1980, 190). An individual's level of political skill or expertise depends on four main factors or abilities: (1) the capacity to formulate "realistic goals" i.e. goals that are feasible, (2) the capacity to formulate alternative strategies" designed to achieve goals, (3) the capacity to formulate coalitions, make friends and allies and to cooperate for mutual benefit, and (4) an understanding of the role of power and its impact on the goals, strategies and coalitions developed (Lee and Lawrence, 1985). A detailed examination of "power" and the "sources of power" is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, power can be viewed as "the ability to influence a decision outcome" (Robbins and Stuart-Kotze, 1986, 129). The ability to influence others is an important aspect of all negotiations. Power in the context of negotiation is "the capacity to 29 make successful demands" (P ru i t t , 1981, 87). THE PLANNER AS DECISION MAKER Rational decision making is part of the essence of planning. In f a c t , the "Rational-Comprehensive Model" is the most widely accepted theory and usual point of departure (Alexander, 1984). The r a t i o n a l -comprehensive method can be described as a decision making process that takes every important factor into account. In the practice of planning i t is impossible to take everything important into consideration due to l i m i t a t i o n s on in fo rmat ion ava i lab le and due to l i m i t s on human in te l lec tua l capacity. In pract ice, decisions regarding complex problems involve " l i m i t e d comparisons" and s i m p l i f i c a t i o n (Lindblom, 1959). Decisions or pol ic ies made by planners are always a matter of t r y ing to choose the best a l ternat ive but never the best fact (Davidoff, 1965). There are a number of functions which have been iden t i f i ed as major p lanning r o l e s . Many of the most important func t ions have been summarized in Table 2. Each one of these functions involves decision making. A complete description of the evolution of planning is beyond the scope of t h i s thes is . However, Table 2 helps i l l u s t r a t e what planning has become. Schon summarizes th is evolution when he states that . . . in the planning profession, images or role have evolved s ign i f i cant ly in re la t i ve ly br ie f periods of time. The profession, which came into being around the turn of the century, moved in succeeding decades through d i f f e r e n t ideas in good currency about planning theory and pract ice, par t ly in response to changes in context shaped by planners themselves. The history of the evolution of planning roles can be understood as a global conversation between the planning profession and i t s s i tuat ion (1983, 204-05). 30 Table 2. Major Roles for Planners ORIGINAL ROLES (1) DESIGNER of Physical Plans (2) ADVISOR and ANALYST to Government ADDITIONAL ROLES (3) ORGANIZER and PARTICIPANT in community decisions (4) ADVOCATE advising and representing c l ients groups (5) ENABLER or IMPLEMENTOR of objectives and planning projects (6) EDUCATOR or AGENT of MUTUAL LEARNING (7) FACILITATOR of COMMUNICATION (8) BROKER and NEGOTIATOR (9) MEDIATOR (10) MANAGER or REGULATOR Note: Compiled from various sources, including: Alterman & Macrae, 1983; Schon, 1983. Slater , 1984; 31 I t is important to recognize that There is no ideal role for every planner. The role which a planner takes at a par t icu lar time should depend on the character ist ics of the s i tuat ion and the planner's a t t r ibutes and resources (Baum, 1983, 259-260). THE PLANNER AS COMMUNICATOR "Relating to the community" is an integral part of planning. Codes of ethics and professional conduct for planners help bring t h i s concern into focus. The standards for professional conduct for the "Canadian Ins t i t u te of Planners (CIP)" and the "American Ins t i t u te of Cer t i f ied Planners (AICP)" both refer to the "public in teres t , " especial ly the AICP version. "A p lanner 's primary ob l i ga t i on is to serve the public in terest . While the de f in i t i on of the public interest is formulated through continuous debate, a planner owes allegiance to a conscientiously attained concept of the public interest . . . a planner must pay spec ia l a t t e n t i o n to the i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of decisions . . . A planner must s t r ive to give c i t izens the opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the development of plans . . . " (ACIP Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct; Source: Slater, 1984, 260). An a b i l i t y to re la te to the community is an essent ial part of planning. What are the requirements fo r t h i s a b i l i t y ? How does a community planner re late to his or her c l ient? The answer to t h i s query can be found in exist ing planning theory. John Friedman (1973) suggests t ha t i t i s time to bridge the communication gap. His theory of "Transactive Planning" is a response to what he claims is a widening gul f in communication between technical planners and the i r c l i en ts . Friedman suggests t h a t most planners p re fe r communicating t h e i r ideas in 32 documents. He argues that communication between planners and c l i en ts would be more ef fect ive i f there was more interpersonal dialogue so that the planner and c l i en t could each learn from the other. Communication is fundamental to any cooperative working re lat ionship in everyday l i f e (Forester, 1980). Such views provide recognit ion to the fact that the practice of community planning depends on communication. Without communication there can be no community. Human beings could not formulate and share in common l i f e without communicating with one another (Alder, 1983). There are numerous meanings and concepts l inked to the term "communication." I t is a d i f f i c u l t word to define because of i t s abst rac t and mu l t i d i sc ip l i na ry nature. I t has been suggested that f inding a single working de f in i t i on may not be as f r u i t f u l as probing the various concepts behind the word ( L i t t l e j o h n , 1983). For example, planning theor is t John Forester (1980) has recognized that communication in planning practice involves much more than what the planner wri tes or speaks. Technical planning action also has a communicative dimension. The fact that a planner makes a calculat ion, makes a predict ion or gives advice may unintent ional ly communicate to those i t serves. THE PLANNER AS PERSUADER Table 2 indicates that one of the major roles fo r planners is advocacy. In b r ie f , Paul Davidoff (1965) argued that planning was a competitive a c t i v i t y due to the fact that plans, decisions or po l ic ies represented biases, i . e . , planning action could not be prescribed from a posi t ion of value neut ra l i t y . The competitive nature of th is planning model implies the use of persuasion. Davidoff argues that 33 . . . the planner should do more than explicate the values underlying his prescriptions for courses of a c t i o n ; he should a f f i r m them; he should be an advocate for what he deems proper. (1965, 279). Churchman's (1968) "Systems Approach to the Future" t e l l s us that persuasion i s a legit imate component of "the communication subsystem" which f i t s in to his model of planning. Churchman argues that the persuasion strategy is appropriate when the planners are convinced that the i r proposed plan is correct. He suggests that in such cases planners incorporate the tact ics of a good salesman to se l l the plan. Instead of se l l ing a plan, planners may real ize the necessity of "teaching the plan" (Churchman 1968, Friedman 1966, Alexander 1979). However, Alder (1983) argues that "teaching by t e l l i n g is lec tu r ing , and good lecturers are just as much concerned with persuading l is teners as good salespeople are." The idea that planners act as salesmen or brokers is also suggested by Rabinovitz in 1969. Rabinovitz suggests the planner has a ro le as a broker-negotiator acting as a l ia ison between competing community groups and assist ing in negotiated agreements. Most of these conceptions regarding the ro le of planning share common elements. Rational decis ion making and persuasion are two elements tha t help provide an i n t e r e s t i n g t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k . The persuasion process serves as a means of reaching decisions. Persuasion is involved in logical decision making. The information a man has is at least in part due to persuasion e f fo r ts directed at him. Furthermore, the reasoning structures used to arr ive at a decision are l i k e l y to be the resul t of extended persuasion e f for ts by others (Anderson, 1971). Persuasion is an important planning t o o l . I t has been suggested 34 that when planners believe that the i r proposed plan is correct , then persuasion i s used to communicate t h e i r b e l i e f s , t h e i r " t r u t h . " Anderson, in his book "Persuasion Theory and Pract ice , " argues that persuasion is a means to t r u t h : " I f one man believes he has found the t ru th he feels a concomitant responsib i l i ty to share i t with other men, even those who res i s t i t " (1971, 38). He contends that more than anything else, persuasion provides the means and opportunity for man to act and a l t e r his environment. He suggests that in a society which r e l i e s upon the col lect ive decision-making process, persuasion is the means of reaching solut ions to problems. Solutions are reached v ia persuasion channels both within and among smaller units of society. THE PLANNER AS NEGOTIATOR What function does negotiation serve? The negotiation process is a means of reaching decisions. The functions of negotiation are: (1) the development of spec i f ic agreements, (2) the development of po l i c i es , roles and obl igat ions, and (3) mediation of social change ( P r u i t t , 1981). Given these funct ions, i t seems that planners and students of planning could gain insights by exposure to negotiation theory and s k i l l t r a i n i n g . I f planning is essent ial ly a means of improving decisions regarding the fu tu re , i t follows that a great deal of emphasis should be placed on the study of planning negotiations. I f planning is a decision-making process which is d i rected at achieving goals then planners must t r y to get "what they want from others." They must engage in negotiation on a dai ly basis. Negotiation is necessary because other people often have d i f fe rent goals and have d i f f e r e n t ideas about how to achieve them. Achieving a goal of ten 35 involves the use of shared resources or someone else's resources. Hence, planners must t u rn to others in order to accomplish t h e i r goa ls . Negotiation is a means for a planner to act. Both negot iat ion and persuasion depend on communication. Both negot iat ion and persuasion have a ro le in decision-making processes. They are in ter re la ted. Theories of negotiation as well as theories of persuasion are a l l communication theories. The in ter re la t ionship between communication, decision-making, persuasion and negotiation is evident in the def in i t ions of negotiat ion. In the last several pages, I have provided evidence that there is a l og i ca l l i n k between planning theory and communication-negotiation theory. A review of some selected a r t i c les on planning theory published between 1955-1969 provides evidence that the current fascinat ion with th i s linkage is not a temporary fashion. P o l i t i c s , Planning & The Public In terest (1955) is perhaps the ear l ies t major contr ibut ion on bargaining in planning theory. Meyerson and Banfield 's book is a study of how some important decisions were reached in a large American c i t y . The c i t y is Chicago and the decisions had to do mainly with the locat ion of public housing projects. (1955, 11). They descr ibe and analyze " the circumstances which impeded communications" between the various part ic ipants in th i s issue (1955, 263). In the i r view, A p o l i t i c a l process which invo lves negot ia t ion (cooperat ion or bargaining) necessitates f u l l e r communication among the part ies to the issue than does one which involves only struggl ing. Negotiation must take place through d i s c u s s i o n , whereas a 36 s t rugg le , although i t involves some exchange of meanings, is p r imar i l y a mutual endeavor to apply power. (1955, 262-263). In the supplement to th is book, Banfield provides an explanation or in terpretat ion of " P o l i t i c s , " "Planning," and the "Public In te res t . " " In order to achieve analyt ical s igni f icance," Banfield redefines these terms and focuses "rather narrowly on some aspects of the case study to the exclusion of others" (1955, 303). He defines " p o l i t i c s , " for example, as . . . the a c t i v i t y (negotiat ion, argument, discussion, appl icat ion of force, persuasion, etc . ) by which an issue is ag i ta ted or s e t t l e d . . . . the simplest conceivable un i t of p o l i t i c s (v i z . two actors who face a single issue) must consist of an account of those ends of each party which are relevant to the issue, of the respects in which the ends of the two p a r t i e s are in c o n f l i c t , of the nature of the a c t i v i t y by which the issue i s a g i t a t e d and settlement reached, and the terms of settlement . . . The a c t i v i t y by which parties to an issue agitate i t or bring i t to settlement may be described broadly as one or more of the fol lowing types: A. Cooperation, B. Contention, C. Accommodation, and D. Dic ta t ion. (1955, 304-305). Banfield develops a theoret ica l framework which focuses on the bargaining processes which take place "between publ ic and pr iva te in teres ts ly ing somewhere on a spectrum from a l l i e s to competitors" (Dorcey, 1983, 13). The fact that negotiation is central to planning work was recognized and implied by Paul Davidoff (1965) in his a r t i c l e on advocacy planning. In the body of his a r t i c l e , he talks about advocates seeking to "convince decision makers." Davidoff speaks of the contentious nature of a society with many diverse interest groups. He claims that "the net e f fec t of confrontat ions between advocates of a l te rna t ive plans would be more 37 careful and precise research." Furthermore, he suggests that these c o n f r o n t a t i o n s be "not j u s t adversa r ia l but a lso e d u c a t i o n a l . " Davidoff 's a r t i c l e on advocacy planning is not an e x p l i c i t descr ipt ion of the r o l e of negot ia t ion in p lanning. However, the importance of negotiation is implied. An examination of the language (concepts and ideas) he uses reveals that i t is the same language that is used by negotiation theor is ts . A few years l a t e r , Churchman (1968), in his book "The Systems Approach," also implies that negot iat ion is a component of planning pract ice. He states that "planning is concerned with multistage decision making." He argues that planning involves a number of processes which can be f i t t e d into a systems model. The communication subsystem includes persuasion as well as mutual education. This once again is the language of negotiation theory. Rabinovitz (1969), in her book City Po l i t i cs and Planning, c lear ly sees negotiation as a legit imate planning funct ion. In her view, The patterns of community decision-making may require the planner to have the verbal s k i l l s of the public re lat ions man, the f inancial acumen of the banker, and the bargaining sens i t i v i t i es of the p o l i t i c i a n . (1969, 137-138). Rabinovitz's conclusion i s , . . . i t would appear that the planner can learn to be an ef fect ive p o l i t i c a l actor in d i f fe rent kinds of p o l i t i c a l systems. (1969, 156). Banfield and Rabinovitz both suggest that negotiation is a p o l i t i c a l s k i l l . Banf ie ld, Davidoff, Churchman and Rabinovitz provide evidence that planning scholars have been studying and wr i t ing about negotiat ion 38 for over thirty years. The "planner-negotiator" function is generally accepted by planning theorists as a legitimate planning role (see Table 2). PRACTICE ORIENTED THEORY The word "practice" is ambiguous . . . "practice" refers to performance in a range of professional situations . . . it refers to preparation for performance. But professional practice also includes an element of repetit ion. A professional practitioner is a specialist who encounters certain types of situations again and again . . . As a practitioner experiences many variations of a small number of types of cases, he is able to "practice" his practice (Schon, 1983, 60). Negotiated decision making is one of the "situations" that a planner can expect to encounter again and again. Planning students and practitioners are increasingly seeking pragmatic theory they can apply to "situations." Schon refers to these theories as "strategies of action" (1983, 234). An action-orientation and a multidisciplinary approach has contributed to the recognition that areas outside of urban, regional and resource planning, such as management and organizational theory, provide basic concepts of relevant theoretic importance. In recent years, theorists such as Baum, Forester, Friedman, Hudson, Schon, Susskind and others have been identified as providing encouraging work on the linkages between theory and practice (Plan Canada, 1982; Hoch & Cibulskis, 1987). The link between practice and theory is discussed by Friedman and Hudson (1974) in their article "Knowledge and Action: A Guide to Planning Theory." They suggest that achieving a profound understanding of the major theories about planning should lead to more effective 39 pract ice. They consider i t useful to look at planning as "an a c t i v i t y cen t ra l l y concerned wi th the linkage between knowledge and organized act ion" (1972:2). Building on these ideas, Donald Schon claims that planning knowledge includes interpersonal theories of ac t ion . He states that planners choose the i r role frame from the profession's reper to i re , or they may design the i r own version. In his a r t i c l e , "Some of What a Planner Knows: A Case Study of Knowing-in-Practice," Schon provides an in terest ing case study i n v o l v i n g a meeting between a planner, a developer and an a r c h i t e c t . He i d e n t i f i e s and analyzes the bargaining process which occurs during a review of development plans. He ca l ls th i s bargaining process the "review game." Schon observes: The planner t r i es to win the review game by wringing concessions from the developer, while at the same time helping him to pass the boards review. The developer t r i e s to win without paying too great a price for them. The planner can lose the game in two ways: by allowing bad projects to get through or by discouraging good ones. The developer can loose in two ways: by f a i l i n g to get his project through, or by paying too high a price for gett ing i t through. (1982, 359). Schon argues: In the review game each possible v io la t ion of the by law i s also a bargaining po in t . When a planner b r ings up such an i tem, he may or may not be communicating an inv i ta t ion to negotiat ion. (1982, 360). Schon concludes that planners place themselves in intermediary roles and th i s brings potential for c o n f l i c t . The signif icance of th is c o n f l i c t depends on how each pract i t ioner frames his ro le . 40 Schon provides pract i t ioners with "action ideas." John Forester also has a pragmatic approach to planning theory. His a r t i c l e , t i t l e d "Cr i t i ca l Theory and Planning Practice," focuses on the p o l i t i c a l nature of communication in planning pract ice. He arrives at th i s conclusion based on eighteen months of regular observation of a metropolitan c i t y planning department's o f f i ce of environmental review. He observes that the planners often had to negotiate with developers for design changes that would reduce or minimize adverse environmental impacts. Forester warns planners of the p o l i t i c a l costs of distorted communication: In bargaining or other adversarial s i tuat ions, for example, planners won't be expected to t e l l the whole t r u t h , and nothing but the t r u t h . . . . Planners w i l l often feel compelled to be less frank or open than they might w ish , but then they should not be surprised when they f ind members of the public at times suspicious, resentful or angry. (1980, 279). Forester's interest in planning negotiation theory continues seven years la te r . In par t i cu la r , I refer to a recent a r t i c l e which appeared in "Journal of the American Planning Assoc ia t ion" (Summer 1987). "Planning in the Face of Conf l ic t : Negotiation and Mediation Strategies in Local Land Use" is evidence of t h i s author 's pragmatic out look. Forestor asks us to consider: s ix mediated-negotiat ion strategies that planning s t a f f can u t i l i z e in the face of local land-use c o n f l i c t s . They are mediated st rategies because planners employ them to assure that the interests of major part ies legi t imately come into play. They are negotiation strategies because (except for the f i r s t ) they focus a t tent ion on the informal negotiations that may produce viable agreements even before formal decision-making boards meet. (1987, 306). In h is paper, Forester provides a s t ra igh t fo rward conclusion that 41 " m e d i a t e d - n e g o t i a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r p lanners make good sense p o l i t i c a l l y , e th ica l ly and pract ica l ly " (1987, 312). What is mediation? In mediation, a neutral t h i rd party provides assistance in a dispute or negot iat ion process. "Among t h e i r most important aims is to encourage bargainers to take a problem solving approach, that i s , to abandon primary reliance on competitive tac t i cs and to seek a coordinated solut ion" ( P r u i t t , 1981, 204). Robert Coulson, President of the American Arb i t ra t ion Society, states tha t : Mediators use various techniques to accomplish that goal. A mediator t r i es to convince part ies that they w i l l benefit from reaching agreement . . . warning them of the dangers of being unable to agree. Encouraging the part ies to negotiate in good f a i t h . . . part ies turn to a mediator when they feel that they need help . . . Mediators do not decide issues . . . The process is voluntary. (1984, 10-11). Susskind and McCreary note tha t "mediators w i th appropr ia te substantive knowledge can be the source of ingenious proposals that turn out to be acceptable to a l l sides" (1985, 366). Lawrence Susskind is perhaps the f i r s t planning theor is t to discuss mediated-negotiat ion. The a r t i c l e he wrote with Connie Ozawa, which presents these ideas, is t i t l e d "Mediated Negotiation in the Public Sector: The Planner as a Mediator" (1983). This a r t i c l e is perhaps the f i r s t to e x p l i c i t l y present "a new conception of the planner's ro le" s imi la r to Rabinovitz 's broker-negot iator . In the i r view, consensus bui ld ing and dispute resolut ion are tasks which are central to the m e d i a t o r - p l a n n e r . The med ia to r -p lanner "encourages contending stakeholders to explore the i r differences" (1983, 9 ) . Their main point is that planners should learn how to pract ice mediation and have a 42 working understanding of techniques used in consensus-building and dispute resolut ion. Howell Baum (1983) draws attent ion to the types of expertise needed to deal with today's complex inter locking problems. He contends that Even i f planners assert that the i r work is to provide " r a t i o n a l i t y f o r decis ion making," the dec is ion making is p o l i t i c a l , as a consequence, planners' work is i m p l i c i t l y p o l i t i c a l . The problems with which planners are concerned impinge on c o n f l i c t s of perceptions, c o n f l i c t s of values and con f l i c t s of in terests . (1983, 5-6). I t appears as though Baum accepts Forester's views on the p o l i t i c a l nature of planning work. Where Forester claims that communication is p o l i t i c a l , Baum focuses on decision-making. In e f fec t , they are looking at p lanning from a s i m i l a r v iewpo in t . Communication theory i s in ter re la ted to decision-making theory. Negotiation is the common l i n k . In an e f f o r t to establ ish a new model of the profess ion, Baum examines planners' perceptions of t h e i r expert ise. He does th is by conducting a survey directed at pract i t ioners. Baum asks planners "what strengths they believe they contribute to the i r day-to-day work" (1983, 4 3 ) . In p a r t i c u l a r , Baum was searching f o r s k i l l s which might d i s t i n g u i s h them as p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Baum found that "the types of expertise which planners did mention as the i r strengths may be placed in two categories: in te l lec tua l s k i l l s and interpersonal/organizat ional / p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s " (1983, 58). He contends that planners which emphasize interpersonal expertise tend to describe planning "as a p o l i t i c a l process in which planners contribute to social and physical changes by c l a r i f y i n g issues, communicating with interested actors, and f a c i l i t a t i n g agreements among part ies with possible differences in in teres t . " Furthermore, these 43 planners are implicitly "saying that governance at some level is a problem" which they work on (1983, 60). Based on these observations, Baum presents a new model for planning practice. His model is "organizationally sensitive" and "is concerned with social governance." An examination of the main ingredients of this model reveals that negotiation skills are called for. Ability to formulate problems and to negotiate ground rules are central to his model of planning practice. In Baum's words, "The negotiation of ground rules involves not only insightful intellectual understanding of actors' points-of-view, but also interpersonal and organizational skills in working with actors who disagree" (1983, 264). THE PLANNER AS MANAGER Baum's emphasis on negotiation skills, interpersonal skills and organizational skills is borrowed from the realm of organizational behavior and management theory. The "roles of planners and managers are continuing to merge" (Slater, 1984, 52). Management is related to planning by definition, i.e., planning is a major management function. Another perspective sees planning as "management and management is the effective implementation of planning" (Carrol, 1984, Forward to Slater). Managers engage in planning because: (1) Planning is a way of anticipating change and reducing uncertainty. It forces managers to look ahead so that they can cope with the impacts of change. Planning does not eliminate changes, but it is a mechanism to deal with change. (2) Planning is a way of reducing wasteful and redundant activities. Planning is concerned with efficient use of resources. 44 Table 3. Major Roles for Managers GROUP ROLE DESCRIPTION INTERPERSONAL (1) FIGUREHEAD Symbolic (2) LEADER Motivator (3) LIAISON Networking INFORMATIONAL (4) MONITOR Receiver (5) DISSEMINATOR Transmitor/ in house (6) SPOKESPERSON Transmitor DECISIONAL (7) ENTREPRENEUR Opportunist (8) DISTURBANCE HANDLER Conf l ic t Manager (9) RESOURCE ALLOCATOR Responsibi l i ty (10) NEGOTIATOR Representative Adapted From: Henry Mintzberg, "The Nature of Managerial Work," New York, Harper & Row, 1973, 93-94. Figure 2 . Foundation S k i l l s for Managers MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS PLANNING ORGANIZING LEADING CONTROLLING COMMUNICATION DECISION MAKING MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS PLANNING ORGANIZING LEADING CONTROLLING NEGOTIATION 46 (3) Planning is a way of establishing objectives and ways of achieving or implementing these object ives. (Robbins & Kotze, 1986). In addi t ion to planning, managers spend the i r time negot iat ing, i nves t iga t ing , coordinat ing, representing and d i r e c t i n g . Management involves: (1) working and communicating with other people, (2) decision making, (3) analyzing and conceptualizing, (4) p o l i t i c a l and diplomatic aspects, (5) respons ib i l i ty and accountabi l i ty, (6) c o n f l i c t regu la t ion and reso lu t ion and mediation of d isputes (Stoner, 1982; Whetten & Cameron, 1984; Robbins & Kotze, 1986). Once again, the main functions of management (as indicated in the working de f i n i t i on provided at pages 24-25) are: (1) Planning, i . e . , es tab l i sh ing an overa l l s t ra tegy , (2) Organiz ing, i . e . , arranging s t ruc tu re , (3) Leading, i . e . , mot ivat ing, d i r e c t i n g , inf luencing and handling c o n f l i c t s i t ua t ions , and (4) Con t ro l l i ng , i . e . , monitoring performance compared to goals and correcting deviations (Stoner, 1982; Robbins & Kotze, 1986). What is the role of a manager? Mintzberg (1973) iden t i f i es ten roles (see Table 3) . The roles are interrelated and can be grouped into those concerned mainly with interpersonal re la t ions , information t ransfer and decision making. Communication and decision making are the foundations of management (see Figure 2) . Negotiation can be considered a communication process aimed at reaching decisions. Therefore, negotiation is a foundation s k i l l for managers. Let me elaborate fu r ther . 47 F i r s t , surveys have c o n s i s t e n t l y shown t h a t the a b i l i t y to communicate is a manager's number one problem. Oral communication consumes between 60-80 percent of a manager's time. Oral communication is favoured because managers need to communicate quickly (Stoner, 1982; Whetten & Cameron, 1984; Robbins & Kotze, 1986). Second, decision making is synonymous with management (Simon, 1960). Planning, o rgan iz ing , leading and con t ro l l i ng are the funct ions of management and each function involves decision making. Decision making plays a par t i cu la r ly important ro le , however, when a manager is engaged in planning. Planning involves the most s ign i f i can t and fa r reaching decisions a manager can make. (Stoner, 1982, 159). Third, negotiation is related to communication and decision making by de f i n i t i on (see working def in i t ions on pages 25-26). Based on th is re la t ionsh ip one must conclude that negot iat ion is a key aspect of management work. Negotiation is a foundation s k i l l used in the pract ice of planning and management. Certainly negotiation is a useful s k i l l for important occasions, but i t also l i e s at the core of the manager's job. Managers negotiate not only to win contracts, but also to guide enterprises in the face of change. (Lax & Sebenius, 1986, 2) . Again and again, there are numerous sources which share t h i s ins ight . Negotiation is a useful s k i l l . Management work is based on three types of s k i l l s : (1) Technical: the a b i l i t y to use tools and techniques, (2) Human: the a b i l i t y to understand, motivate, lead, and 48 Figure 3. S k i l l Mix Needed at Various Levels of Management FIRST-LINE MIDDLE TOP MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT CONCEPTUAL HUMAN TECHNICAL CONCEPTUAL HUMAN TECHNICAL CONCEPTUAL HUMAN TECHNICAL Source: James Storier, "Management," New Jersey, Prent ice-Hal l , 1982, 19. Figure 4. Management Technical Mix SENIOR PLANNING POSITION/TOP MANAGERS MIDDLE MANAGERS ENTRY LEVEL HEAVY EMPHASIS ON MANAGEMENT SKILLS MANAGEMENT SKILLS TECHNICAL SKILLS EMPHASIS ON TECHNICAL SKILLS Adapated From: Robbins & Kotze, "Management Concepts and Pract ice, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice-Hall Canada, 1986, 24. 50 (3) Conceptual: the a b i l i t y to coordinate and integrate (Katz, 1974). Figure 3 i l l us t ra tes th is point and provides an idea of the re la t i ve importance of each s k i l l at various management levels. According to Katz (1974), technical and human s k i l l s are more important at lower levels of management. Conceptual and human s k i l l s are most important at higher leve ls . Human s k i l l is important at a l l levels of management. The importance of technical s k i l l diminishes with top management posit ions (see Figure 4) . Where does negotiation f i t in regarding these three basic s k i l l s ? Howard Rai f fa 's views on the subject help to provide an answer. There is an ar t and science of negot ia t ion . By "science" I loosely mean systematic analysis fo r problem solving . . . The "ar t " side of the ledger . . . i nc ludes i n te rpe rsona l s k i l l s , the a b i l i t y to convince and be convinced, the a b i l i t y to employ a basket fu l l of bargaining ploys, and the wisdom to know when and how to use them. (1982, 7-8). Based on t h i s understanding, I believe that negot ia t ion s k i l l s depend on a l l three elements, i . e . , technical , conceptual, and human. The human s k i l l s requirement is probably the most obvious l i nk to negotiation s k i l l s . Planners who are interested or current ly employed in management roles need human and negotiation s k i l l s . However, Baum, for example, recognizes that some planners "prefer to work purely as in te l lec tua l problem-solvers" (1983, 274). This f i t s the image of a planner as a techn ic ian or ana lys t . However, planners faced wi th co l labora t i ve problem solving tasks would benefit from interpersonal s k i l l s t ra in ing coupled with exposure to formal theories of human behavior. I believe t h i s is one of Baum's po in t s , and i t is a point I would l i k e to 51 emphasize. Planners who emphasize the quantitative analysis of scientifically derived data and the conclusions drawn from those data can be said to be technicians and theoreticians (analysts). Planners who emphasize bargaining to achieve implementation can be said to be technicians and politicians . . . It is the managerial and political environment that helps or hinders implementation. (Slater, 1984, 33). The message that Slater is trying to convey is that: Planners know they must be good managers to be effective, that is to see their recommendations realized and their objectives achieved. (1984, 1). As already indicated, some importance is placed on the achievement of goals that have been planned. Stoner describes this relationship: Plans are implemented through detailed actions aimed at realizing specific objectives. It is at this action-taking stage that planning moves into another management function, controlling . . . Controlling cannot take place unless a plan exists, and a plan has little chance of success unless some efforts are made to monitor its progress. (1982, 136). What is control? Robbins and Kotze provide a useful explanation: Control can be defined as the process of monitoring activities to ensure they are being accomplished as planned and correcting any significant deviations . . . control is important, therefore, because it is the final link in the functional chain of management . . . (1986, 504-505). The success of a plan depends on management control, i.e. it is the means by which plans are implemented. During the implementation stage, action is taken and resources are committed. The road to final implementation of a plan often includes resistance by interested parties 52 or opposit ion. Decision taking and implementation are considered the stages in planning and managing where conf l i c t is most v i s ib le (Minnery, 1985). Since decision taking and implementation are core aspects of planning and managing, v is ib le con f l i c t is unavoidable. INTERPERSONAL SKILLS AND CONFLICT MANAGING In the practice of planning, communication and decision making are often p o l i t i c a l . Confl ict is inevi table. Friedman, for example, states tha t a dialogue between planners and t h e i r c l i e n t s " inc ludes the p o s s i b i l i t y and indeed the l ikel ihood of con f l i c t " (1979, 103). Minnery takes th is argument fur ther when he states that " con f l i c t is inherent in the very act of communication" (1985, 18). Despite a l l i t s negat ive connotat ions, c o n f l i c t i s a useful phenomenon. Most modern management tex ts i d e n t i f y c o n f l i c t as an essent ia l par t of organizat ional l i f e . The suggestion being that c o n f l i c t serves a necessary func t ion . Conf l ic t prevents stagnation, stimulates c rea t i v i t y and can help personal improvement. Conf l ic t can bring about innovation and provide organizations with the a b i l i t y to survive in competitive environments. Conf l ic t is a mechanism used to adapt to changing environmental condit ions, a way of changing the status quo (Whetten & Cameron, 1985; Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). I f con f l i c t is inherent in the act of communication, then i t cannot be el iminated. I t is natura l . An acceptance of con f l i c t might also lead to the view that there is an optimal level of con f l i c t (Boulding, 1962). Robbins and Stuart-Kotze (1986) provide a clear and concise i l l u s t r a t i o n of "optimal con f l i c t " in an organizational se t t ing . Figure 5 shows that there can be too l i t t l e or too much con f l i c t . They label e i ther extreme Figure 5. Optimal Level of Conf l ic t High of Organizational •mance A / B \ C i — o cu <*-a v |_ow Low Level of Conflict H i g h V ^ Situation Level of Conf1ict Type of Conf1ict Organization's Internal Characteristics Level of Organizational Performance A Low or none Dysfunc-tional Apathetic Stagnant Unresponsive to change Lack of new ideas Low B Optimal Functio-nal Viable Self-critical Innovative High C High Dysfunc-tional Disruptive Chaotic Uncooperative Low Source: "Management Concepts and Practices," Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986, 485. 54 as being "dysfunct ional c o n f l i c t . " Meanwhile, an optimal level of c o n f l i c t is seen as being " funct iona l . " Conf l ict management, as defined at page 27, involves regulat ion and resolu t ion. The challenge faced by con f l i c t managers is in being able to ident i fy and maintain an optimal level of c o n f l i c t . Unfortunately, there is no clear or precise way to determine whether or not c o n f l i c t is at a functional leve l . However, there is a good deal of theory and numerous strategies available to those who study and practice con f l i c t management. The concept of con f l i c t management can be somewhat i l l u s i v e . John Minnery (1985), in his book "Conf l ic t Management in Urban Planning," explains that c o n f l i c t as a phenomenon is complex, at times subt le, usually poorly understood and generally inadequately defined. He derives a framework of no less than fourteen variables or dimensions of c o n f l i c t . He describes these variables as "mechanisms available for the management of con f l i c t " (1985, 145). Bargaining is one of the mechanisms avai lable. But he emphasizes tha t " i n p r a c t i c e , bargain ing and nego t ia t i on strategies are l i ke l y to be applied in the whole range of s i tuat ions" (1985, 144). Negot iat ion s k i l l s are a basic requirement in the pract ice of c o n f l i c t management. Unfortunately, not enough at tent ion has been paid to th is fundamental requirement in planning education. A c c o r d i n g t o Baum and Schon, p l a n n e r s are profess ional ly and psychological ly i l l -equipped to meet the complex challenges of uncer ta in ty and c o n f l i c t that inevi table [ s i c ] occur in pract ice. Both turn to education as a solut ion. Planners need to learn how to communicate, negotiate and organize support fo r t h e i r proposals in applied se t t ings . (Hoch & Cibulskis, 1987, 100). 55 The message behind much of the more recent p r a c t i c e - o r i e n t e d planning theory is that planners must have an especially well developed set of people s k i l l s , i . e . , t ra in ing in oral communication, negot iat ion, c o n f l i c t management and interpersonal s k i l l s . People s k i l l s or a b i l i t y " i s the product of aptitude mul t ip l ied by t ra in ing . . . both components are essent ial" (Whetten & Cameron, 1984, 305). "Aptitude" refers to inherent a b i l i t i e s such as physical and mental capab i l i t i es . Aptitude also includes persona l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . "Most of our inherent a b i l i t i e s can be enhanced by education and t ra in ing" (Whetten & Cameron, 1984, 305). Strong technical , analyt ical and quanti tat ive s k i l l s are important but not s u f f i c i e n t . Planning jobs requi re well developed "people s k i l l s . " Researchers have shown th is by observing planners at work. Hoch and Cibulskis (1987), for example, interviewed 60 Chicago planners and found that "the incidence of job threatening p o l i t i c a l c o n f l i c t may be as high as one in two . . . one in three admitted purposefully avoiding the danger of p o l i t i c a l disputes altogether" (99). Interpersonal c o n f l i c t management s k i l l s are the basic bui lding b locks needed f o r h igher l e v e l s of c o n f l i c t i n v o l v i n g groups, organizations, society and nations. An understanding of interpersonal c o n f l i c t management techniques is essential for those dealing in an environment of p o l i t i c a l communication and p o l i t i c a l decision making. I f the Hoch and Cibulskis study is an accurate ind ica t ion of the job threatening conf l i c ts planners face, then i t makes good sense to supply planners with interpersonal con f l i c t management techniques they can use to save the i r jobs. Training in the social- interpersonal dimensions of communication is c r i t i c a l . Whetten and Cameron explain why: 56 The communication skill of most concern is the ability to transmit clear, precise messages . . . Fortunately, much progress has been made recently in improving the transmission of accurate messages-that is, improving their clarity and precision . . . However, comparable progress has not occurred in the interpersonal aspects of communication . . . By interpersonal aspects of communication we mean the nature of the relationship between communicators. (1984, 200-201). Whetten and Cameron argue that unskillful interpersonal communication stands in the way of effective message delivery more often than the lack of ability to deliver accurate information (see pages 27-28 regarding definition of interpersonal skill). They illustrate this point (Figure 6) by summarizing the relationship between unskillful communication and interpersonal relations. The indication being that unskillful communication, i.e., abrasive and insensitive message delivery results in: (1) a reduction in the quality of interpersonal relationships and (2) prevents accurate information flow due to psychological barriers. According to Whetten and Cameron, "effective interpersonal communication is supportive communication" (1984, 203). What does this mean? "Supportive communication" involves accurate message delivery and an active effort to support or enhance the relationship. The emphasis here is on face-to-face interactions. They claim that the purpose of "supportive communication" is to (1) improve message accuracy and (2) to overcome interpersonal barriers. They identify two important barriers to communication, defensiveness and disconfirmation. Both of these psychological barriers block effective message delivery and reduce the quality of the interpersonal relationship. Defensiveness may occur when an individual feels threatened. The Figure 6. Unskillful Communication & Interpersonal Relationships ABRASIVE, INSENSITIVE UNSKILLFUL MESSAGE DELIVERY DISTANT, DISTRUSTFUL UNCARING INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS RESTRICTED, INACCURATE INFORMATION AND DEFECTIVE COMMUNICATION FLOW Source: Whetten & Cameron, 1984, 202. 58 resu l t i ng behaviour could range from avoidance to competitiveness to aggression and anger. Disconfirmation may occur when an individual feels i n s i g n i f i c a n t or ine f fec t i ve due to the i n t e r a c t i o n . Reactions to disconfirmation may include d issat is fact ion with the re lat ionship or the communication, loss of motivation and withdrawal. P s y c h o l o g i c a l b a r r i e r s can impede, i n t e r f e r e and d i s t o r t communication. This knowledge alone is i nsu f f i c ien t , i . e . , i t does not improve one 's c a p a c i t y to n e g o t i a t e . Yet i t i s obvious t h a t interpersonal s k i l l does enhance negotiator effectiveness. Fisher and Davis (1987), for example, propose "Six Basic Interpersonal Sk i l l s for a Negotiator's Repertoire." Their column featured in "Negotiation Journal" i den t i f i es the fol lowing categories of interpersonal s k i l l s considered usefu l : (1) expressing strong feelings appropriately; (2) remaining rat ional in the face of strong feel ings; (3) being a s s e r t i v e w i t h i n a n e g o t i a t i o n w i thou t damaging the re la t ionship ; (4) improving a relat ionship without damage to a par t icu lar negot iat ion; (5) speaking c lear ly in ways that promote l i s ten ing ; and (6) inquir ing and l is tening e f fec t ive ly . (1987, 117) These six basic interpersonal s k i l l s are fundamental and must be considered as an integral component of any serious planning-management education. I share the views of legal educators Edwards and White when they state that : Knowing what we do about how one learns other s k i l l s , i t seems implausible that a person who studies the process of communication in a systematic way and attempts through a series of practice negotiations to 59 apply those principles will utterly fail to improve his capacity. This is not to say that every student will become an expert . . . However, our experiences in the classroom lead us to believe that one who studies and practices can improve his capacity to communicate. (1977, 143). CONCLUDING COMMENTS In the preceding review of theoretical perspectives, I attempt to provide a rationale for including negotiation in planning school curricula. In particular, I describe and explain the theoretical linkages between planning, managing, communicating, decision making, negotiating, persuading, conflict managing, interpersonal skills and political skills. I provide evidence of the increasing importance of management skills in public planning. My review of the literature is a "bare bones" attempt to propose and develop a basic model of planning with negotiation as a foundation skill . This model divides planning skills into two main categories: (1) technical skills and (2) interpersonal-political skills. Interpersonal-political skills are equated to management skills, i.e., human resources management skills. Negotiation is shown to be at the core of a planner-manager's operational skills. The "Practice Oriented Theory" presented here promotes the role of planner as negotiator. Perhaps the strongest message that emerges from the more recent literature on negotiation in planning is that virtually all planners engage in negotiation. However, "the fact that virtually all of us frequently engage in negotiation does not make us effective negotiators" (Rubin, 1983, 135). Another message which emerges is that a planner's work is implicitly political and negotiation is a political skill. "Because planning in the 60 public domain is p o l i t i c a l l y inspired, i t creates con f l i c t " (Friedman, 1987, 29). Negotiation s k i l l s are a basic requirement in the pract ice of c o n f l i c t management. Baum, Forester, Schon, Susskind and others have raised an important issue which involves the competency of pract ic ing planners. They have raised a broad concern that the preparation of planners is fundamentally de f i c ien t in important areas. In p a r t i c u l a r , the areas of primary in te res t and concern which have been consistently ident i f ied include: (1) e f fec t i ve oral communication, (2) negotiation s k i l l s for decision making and con f l i c t management, (3) organizational and p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s and (4) interpersonal s k i l l s . These theor ists a l l point to education as a solut ion. The fo l lowing d iscussion examines negot ia t ion and dispute r e s o l u t i o n content in planning cur r icu la . PART THREE: THE SUPPLY OF NEGOTIATION CURRICULA 62 INTRODUCTION In th is section my goal is to present and analyze the resul ts of a survey I conducted on negotiation in planning school cu r r i cu la . The d iscuss ion focuses on two separate but s i m i l a r surveys: (1) an examination of negotiation and conf l i c t resolut ion curr icu la available at a select number of planning schools located in the U.S.A. and (2) a re la t i ve l y comprehensive examination of negotiation cur r icu la offered by members of the "Association of Canadian Planning Programs." Al though planners have always been n e g o t i a t o r s , courses on negot iat ion and dispute resolut ion have jus t started to appear at a number of un ivers i t ies . In fac t , my research shows that these courses began to appear in 1981-82. Furthermore, my research shows that there has been steady growth, i . e . , more and more schools are par t ic ipa t ing or upgrading the i r negotiation cur r icu la . What are they teaching? What topics are covered or emphasized? Which schools are par t ic ipat ing? How are these courses taught? These questions represent some of the main concerns addressed here. The . information presented here is probably of most in te res t to planning educators. On the other hand, the data, r e s u l t s and mater ia ls should also be of i n t e r e s t to students and p rac t i t i oners . For example, the appendices may prove to be a useful resource for those studying negotiation and dispute resolut ion. Topics presented in t h i s section are organized in the fol lowing manner. Each topic or heading which is discussed here makes reference to the "Appendices," beginning with the discussion on "A Source Book on Dispute Resolution in Planning School Curr icula." Second, the "Survey Data: U.S.A." are presented. "Questionnaire Results: Canada" is the 63 t h i rd component of th is section, followed by a discussion and analysis of resul ts for both surveys. A SOURCE BOOK ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN PLANNING SCHOOL CURRICULA In Part One, under the "Research Procedures" heading, I provided deta i ls regarding my cooperation with a study that was i n i t i a t e d by the "National Ins t i tu te for Dispute Resolution" in Washington, D.C. (See Appendix 5, fo r de ta i l s regarding NIDR). My cooperation wi th t h i s project is acknowledged in the resul t ing publ icat ion t i t l e d "A Source Book on Dispute Resolution in Planning School Curr icula," released in 1987. The "Source Book" is the most recent and most comprehensive study of i t s k ind, i . e . , on negotiation related curr icu la in North American Planning schools. What was my contr ibut ion to th is study? In b r ie f , I provided copies of a l l the course ou t l i nes and reading l i s t s which I had already col lected. Some of these materials are presented in "Part V" of the book. Furthermore, I provided a copy of the questionnaire used in my nat iona l survey of Canadian Planning schools. I be l ieve tha t my questionnaire provided a useful s tar t ing point and helped to shape the NIDR version. The purpose of the "Source Book" is to "stimulate and assist in the development of educational resources devoted to dispute resolut ion in the planning arena" (Forward to Dinell & Goody, 1987). The "Source Book" is recommended reading fo r planning educators who wish to teach or are already involved in the instruct ion of these topics. Those interested in obtaining a copy should contact the NIDR (see Appendix 5) . 64 Relative to the NIDR "Source Book" my resu l ts and f indings are somewhat cursory. However, my own research on negotiation cur r icu la in North American Planning schools is not i r re levant . I t s contr ibut ion is that i t confirms many of the findings reported in the "Source Book" and adds to i t . SURVEY DATA: U.S.A. The data or f indings in th is port ion of my research are organized in to three main topics. They include: (1) reference to Exhibit 2, (2) reference to Table 4, and (3) reference to Appendix 3. Exh ib i t 2 is a copy of Lawrence Susskind's response regarding planning schools in the U.S.A. known to have negot ia t ion courses. Susskind's l e t t e r is worth noting because i t provided me with a d i rec t and e f f i c i e n t means of surveying a select number of planning schools. I t also introduced me to the NIDR. This introduction led to my cooperation with the "Source Book" project. One notable addition to the data presented in the "Source Book" is Table 4 (Table 6 & Figure 8 for Canadian resu l t s ) . Table 4 documents the year in which each respondent f i r s t offered course work with substantial negotiation content. Harvard is at the top of the chronological l i s t . Harvard's "Kennedy School of Government" began of fer ing th is type of course work in 1972. A telephone conversation wi th Howard Rai f fa confirmed that Harvard was indeed the f i r s t to o f f e r nego t ia t i on cur r icu la for i t s planning and administration students. However, the trend to introduce these courses began in 1981. Based on Susskind's l e t t e r and information contained in the NIDR "Source Book" at least 16 Table 4. Year Negotiation Courses Were First Offered to Planning Students: U.S.A. UNIVERSITY FIRST YEAR (1) Harvard 1972 (Kennedy School of Government) (2) M.I.T. 1981 (3) U.C. Berkeley 1981 (4) Hawaii 1983 (5) Wisconsin-Madison 1985 (6) Florida 1986 67 universities in the United States now offer negotiation or dispute resolution course work. What do planning students learn in these courses? Appendix 3 provides a sample of what is being offered. In particular, Appendix 3 contains: (1) a sample of the individualized letters I used to conduct this part of my research, (2) a complete list of responding schools, (3) a listing of courses with negotiation content, (4) a sample of the correspondence I received from respondents, (5) a course outline and reading list for a short course on negotiation, and (6) a course outline and reading list for a full course on Environmental Dispute Resolution. QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS: CANADA The presentation of data for this part of my research is arranged into three main topics: (1) a brief reference to Exhibit 3 & 4, (2) reference to Tables 5-7 and (3) reference to Appendix 2 & 6. Exhibit 3 is a copy of the cover letter and Exhibit 4 is the questionnaire sent to each member of the "Association of Canadian Planning Programs." This questionnaire provided the basis for the following results and analysis. Most of the relevant data provided from respondents is arranged in Tables 5-7. Table 5 is a synopsis of results obtained from questions 1 and 2 (useful materials collected in response to Questions 1-2 are also available in Appendix 2). Table 5 represents an effort on my part to classify respondents. The classification is based on the responses provided and the curriculum materials submitted to me. Although the classification system I propose provides a useful framework for classifying schools, Table 5 suffers somewhat from a lack 68 of in format ion. None of the "Class B" respondents provided me with course out l ines and reading l i s t s . Information fo r these respondents is based on the completed questionnaires. Consequently, some judgement was required. Table 6 l i s t s the responses fo r Questions 3-4. Two important points can be made about t h i s information. The data shows that bargaining and c o n f l i c t resolut ion cur r i cu la was introduced in 1982 by U.B.C. and York. Second, 8 out of the 11 respondents indicated they had plans to add or improve the i r ex is t ing of fer ings in th i s area. Table 7 provides a l i s t i n g of responses f o r Question 5. The responses regarding negotiat ion education range from somewhat negative (Guelph, Nova Scotia A & D and Queens) to very posi t ive ( U . B . C , Ryerson, and York). Appendix 2 provides more re levant data. I t inc ludes: (1) a complete l i s t of respondents and non-responding schools, (2) a l i s t i n g of re lated relevant courses with a b r ie f descr ipt ion for each and (3) a course out l ine and reading l i s t f o r a short course on negotiat ion offered by Ryerson. SURVEY EDUCATION IN NEGOTIATION FOR PLANNERS 70 1. Do you o f fe r course work in any of the fo l lowing subjects: Subject None A Few Lessons or One or More Practice Sessions Courses or S ign i f i cant Part Thereof Negotiation or Bargaining Conf l ic t Resolution Mediation Oral Communication Interpersonal Relations Argumentation or Debate Advocacy Planning 2. I f not too inconvenient, please provide a course out l ine and reading l i s t fo r each course that includes a substantial content of one or more of the above subjects, pa r t i cu la r l y the f i r s t three. 3. Do you have any immediate plans to add to your of fer ings in negot iat ion, c o n f l i c t resolut ion and/or mediation? Yes No I f yes, please indicate b r i e f l y what you had in mind. 4. In what year did your school f i r s t o f fe r substantial course work in negot iat ion, c o n f l i c t resolut ion and/or mediation. 5, Do you have any comments on the subject of negotiat ion theory and s k i l l t ra in ing courses in the planning school curriculum? Signed: EXHIBIT 4 71 Table 5. Respondent C l a s s i f i c a t i o n CLASS "A CLASS "B II CLASS "C U.B.C. CALGARY GUELPH RYERSON McGILL NOVA SCOTIA A & D TORONTO WATERLOO NOVA SCOTIA TECH. YORK QUEENS Note: Classi f icat ions are based on the fol lowing c r i t e r i a : Class "A" - Respondents provided evidence of substantial negotiation related of fer ings. This includes one or more courses with a s ign i f i can t negotiat ion, con f l i c t resolut ion and/or mediation content. Class "B" - Respondents provided an indicat ion of some negotiat ion related course work avai lable. Examples include, an intensive two day negot ia t ion workshop (McGi l l ) , non-planning courses wi th planning and dispute resolut ion content (Calgary), a course on small group processes with negot iat ion content and some mediation content (Waterloo). Class "C" - Respondents indicated they did not o f fer course work with substantial negotiation related content. 72 Table 6. Questionnaire Response to No. 3 - 4 SCHOOL 1ST YEAR OFFERED PLANS ADD TO SURVEY RESPONSE (1) U.B.C. 1982 Yes - develop short course of pr inc ip les of negot ia t ion in planning in to f u l l course. (2) Calgary 1986 No (3) Guelph NS Yes - formal supervised t r a i n i n g . (4) McGill 1986 Yes - some exposure to negotiat ion w i l l be incorporated in our courses on urban environmental planning which deals pr imari ly with EIA methods. - we may want to run another formal workshop on negotiation in the near future but we intend to have another look at strategic choice f i r s t . (5) NS A & D NS No (6) NS TECH. NS No (7) Queens NS Yes - a few more sessions on negotiat ion but not a course. (8) Ryerson 1985 Yes - i t is a new part of our required curriculum. (9) Toronto 1983 Yes - plan to increase emphasis in plan 1005. (10) Waterloo 1985 Yes - Social innovations/inventions; creat ive problem solving are part of c o n f l i c t resolut ion; appl icat ion of Austral ian model of community based mediation service. (11) York 1982 Yes - c o u r s e i n e n v i r o n m e n t a l negotiation/mediation in Fal l 1986 or Winter 1987. Note: NS = No Substantial Negotiation Course Work. 73 T a b l e 7. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e R e s p o n s e s t o N o . 5 (1) U.B.C. - should be one of the core courses. (2) Calgary - w i l l become more important as al ternat ive to l i t i g a t i o n . (3) Guelph - very relevant and timely . . . prudence needed not to overplay the fashion that has grown up in th is area. (4) McGill - planning students should be exposed to negot ia t ion pr inciples along with the numerous a l ternat ive methods which planners have t rad i t i ona l l y favoured in the select ion of a future course of act ion. This exposure idea l ly should involve experience in actual or simulated negotiat ion s i tuat ions. (5) NS A&D - not p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant to t rea t theory, although students can use t ra in ing in the s k i l l s . (6) NS Tech - I have trained in community mediation and am on the Board of the Community Mediation Network in Hal i fax. I feel that mediation/bargaining is ei ther a generic management s k i l l or i t must be a l l ied to specif ic expertise to resolve par t icu lar types of issues. Mediation is designed to break a log jam. Contact bargaining is something else en t i re l y and should be led by experts. (7) Queens - Planning curriculum are overloaded. These topics can best be handled in short courses. (8) Ryerson - very good response and par t ic ipat ion of students - 98% attendance always. Much interest from planning community for extra workshops & seminars and assistance in actual s i tuat ions. Skepticism on the part of some facu l ty who think i t s faddish. (9) Toronto - can easily become a fad; however has useful potent ia l i f linked to the understanding/analysis of the dynamics of land use con f l i c t s . (10) Waterloo - as planning moves more into management and implementation of plans, negotiation s k i l l s become very important. (11) York - essent ia l ; a leading edge of planning theory and pract ice and a necessary part of planners' gradual move away from technical analyt ical to interact ive planning s ty le (both are essential parts of the planners reper to i re ) . 74 Figure 7. Growth of Negotiation Curricula i n Canadian Planning Schools NO. 8 " 7 6 5 4 3 ' 2 " 1 0 T 82 83 84 85 86 87 YEAR Note: (1) (2) Graph shows the "number of schools vs. year negotiation course work was first established." Cumulative Bar Graph. 75 ANALYSIS Data or facts do not always speak for themselves. The fo l lowing discussion is an attempt to make the data presented in the preceding pages more meaningful. Let's begin with a look at the graph presented in Figure 7. The graph uses Canadian data, but the resul ts for the United States are s imi lar . Basical ly, the graph shows us that there has been a steady growth in planning schools which have chosen to o f fe r bargaining and dispute resolut ion course work. Based on the Canadian survey, th i s growth w i l l continue. Two curr icu lar patterns can be i den t i f i ed : (1) growth in cur r icu la development or ig inat ing from schools already involved, i .e . "Class A" respondents, and (2) re la t i ve ly slow expansion, in the short term (1988-1990), in the number of schools of fer ing th is type of i ns t ruc t ion . Cumulatively, "resistance" or "skept ic ism," on the part of some respondents, might be interpreted as a sign of re la t i ve ly slow expansion in the near fu ture. In comparison, the period between 1981-1986 showed signs of re la t i ve ly moderate expansion. Madeleine Crohn (1985), President of the NIDR, provides another comparison. Her a r t i c l e t i t l e d "Dispute Resolution in Higher Education" provides a review of 24 d i f f e r e n t d i s c i p l i n e s . Law and Indus t r i a l Relations are rated as achieving "substant ial" growth and development in n e g o t i a t i o n and d ispute r e s o l u t i o n c u r r i c u l a . P lann ing , Publ ic Administration and Public Policy are rated as "moderate." Crohn ident i t ies several obstacles to expanded teaching and study of nego t ia t ion and dispute r e s o l u t i o n . According to Crohn, the main obstacles are: (1) the usual ins t i tu t iona l resistance to change, (2) 76 current e f f o r t s to reduce rather than add to the number of courses avai lable, (3) skepticism on the part of some educators about the value of such studies, and (4) an academic elusiveness to dispute resolut ion due to i t s in terd isc ip l inary nature (1985, 304). Crohn provides several pervasive arguments that can be used to overcome these obstacles. F i r s t , she contends that there is an c . . . accumulating force of e f f o r t s to negot ia te , mediate or a r b i t r a t e disputes . . . processes of negot ia t ion , are at the heart of the funct ion of c i v i l i z e d society . . . at some point , higher education must begin the process of catching up with off-campus developments (1985, 304). Second, she argues that "leaders and professionals, in pa r t i cu la r , w i l l need to know and use tools of negotiation" in order to manage and resolve conf l i c ts in a complicated society (1985, 304). Third, she suggests that society w i l l "reap important benefi ts from rigorous scholarship that develops a better understanding of the way disputes can be f a i r l y managed and set t led" (1985, 304-305). Course Content Several observations can be made based on the body of information I col lected for th i s part of my research. The fol lowing observations are worth nothing: • Principal authors and texts used in these courses include: (1) Fisher & Ury, "Getting to Yes," (2) Rai f fa, "The Art and Science of Nego t ia t ion , " (3) Bacow & Wheeler, "Environmental Dispute Resolu t ion, " (4) Susskind, various a r t i c l e s and (5) P r u i t t , "Negotiation Behavior" (see Bibliography for a complete c i t a t i o n ) . 77 Ful l recogni t ion must be given to the fact that the pr inc ipal authors and texts used in Canada and the U.S.A. or ig inate from the United States. Furthermore, Harvard researchers can be singled out for providing the theoret ical foundations for many of these courses - namely: Fisher & Ury and Rai f fa. • Course content, for these courses, ranges from a f a i r l y spec i f ic focus on negot ia t ion theory and pract ice to a more appl ied context. Specific applications include: (1) land use & c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , (2) environmental dispute r e s o l u t i o n , (3) group dynamics and problem solving and (4) decision making. • An analysis of the class hours indicates that short courses ( c r e d i t and n o n - c r e d i t ) range between 9-22 hours. More substantial courses range between 30-42 hours of in-class time. • An analysis of the methods used to grade these courses reveals that class par t ic ipat ion is a major c r i t e r i a . Most of the courses require student par t ic ipat ion in simulated negotiation exercises and ro le p lay ing. Other methods include: papers & research projects, oral reports, journals, exams and quizzing. • An analysis of the theoret ical contents of these courses reveals that the emphasis is on cooperative, pr inc ip led, problem solving in negot ia t ion. Theoretical coverage of the more t rad i t i ona l adversarial approach to negotiation has been excluded by most of these courses. Potential Problems A c r i t i c a l analysis of the theoret ical content of these courses 78 reveals two potent ia l problems or issues: (1) competitive theory is ignored in most of the courses surveyed and (2) much of the theoret ica l basis f o r Canadian course work in negotiation and dispute resolut ion or iginates from the United States. Beginning with the f i r s t issue, Straus contends that Advocating col laborative problem solving in no way means that competition and adversarial s t ra teg ies have become obsolete . . . the process of reaching decisions can go through various in tens i t ies on a col laborative-adversarial spectrum . . . (Straus, 1986, 157). Based on th is understanding, a potential problem exists wi th the cu r ren t emphasis on c o l l a b o r a t i v e negot ia t ion in planning school cu r r i cu la . I believe that a more balanced approach to the theoret ica l content of these courses is needed. As noted in Part One, my concern is with the qual i ty of the decisions made by planner-negotiators. Teaching planners "how to cooperate" is essential for good agreements. However, to ta l avoidance of competitive theory in planner-negotiator education may lead to i n fe r io r decisions. The "resul ts of a large-scale study of the negotiating patterns of pract ic ing attorneys" may help i l l u s t r a t e th is point . Williams (1983) found that : When a cooperative negotiator attempts to establish a cooperative, t rus t ing atmosphere, in a negotiation w i t h a t o u g h , n o n - c o o p e r a t i v e opponent , the cooperative attorney has an alarming tendency to ignore the lack of cooperat ion and pursue his cooperat ive st rategy u n i l a t e r a l l y . . . the tough negotiator is free to accept a l l the fairness and cooperation without giving anything in re turn. (1983, 15). 79 The problem is that cooperative planner-negotiators who are not equipped wi th a balanced view are at r i s k . They are vulnerable to possible exp lo i ta t ion by competitive negotiators. This vu lne rab i l i t y stems from an i n a b i l i t y on the part of some cooperative negotiators to recognize a competitive strategy. Planner-negot ia tors equipped wi th an "unbalanced" t h e o r e t i c a l perspective are vulnerable to "various decisional" or "cognit ive biases" (Neale and Bazerman, 1985, 50). Neale and Bazerman provide evidence " tha t the negot iat ion process is s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected by cognit ive short cuts used by decision makers to reduce the amount of information processed" (1985, 51). They suggest t ra in ing negotiators to el iminate decisional biases. Planning-negotiat ing course content must be designed to r e f l e c t pract ice. In planning pract ice, negotiations are both competitive and cooperat ive. What is needed is "a deeper more useful approach to negotiation . . . I t must incorporate a sh i f t ing mix of cooperative and competitive elements" (Lax & Sebenius, 1986, 25). The second issue or potential problem ident i f ied here, centers on the d i rect ion Canadian Planning schools have taken in adopting "American s t y le " negot ia t ion . Is i t desirable to have American textbooks on nego t ia t ion dominate in Canadian planning courses? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Roy Lewicki's a r t i c l e , t i t l e d "Challenges of Teaching Negotiat ion," contains useful information related to th is issue. He iden t i f ies the current sh i f t in negotiation research: 80 Today, many new negotiation courses are started each year in business schools, law schools, public pol icy schools . . . case studies and simulations are being s y s t e m a t i c a l l y developed to analyze and enact n e g o t i a t i o n in each of these environments and contexts. Research emphasis has largely moved from development of new theoret ical bases to applications and analysis of negotiation in a s i tuat ional context. (1986, 15). Lewicki's examination of "how teaching negotiation is d i f fe ren t " is worth reviewing: Negotiat ion is a r e l a t i v e l y new course area, and un t i l recent ly, each instructor largely "reinvented the wheel," each time he/she designed a negotiation course . . . because of the newness of the f i e l d and lack of open discussion about teaching negot iat ion, the re has been l i t t l e systemat ic d ia logue and research on how the subject should be taught . . . N e g o t i a t i o n has been s tud ied in a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t c o n t e x t s , and both researchers and i n s t r u c t o r s have l i b e r a l l y borrowed models and theories from one context and applied them to another . . . the appropr ia teness of the c r o s s - c o n t e x t t ranslat ion and application has seldom been tested. (1986, 15-16). Based on Lewicki's analysis, the main advantage of adopting American " theoret ical bases" is that i t saves having to "reinvent the wheel." The main disadvantage of adopting American textbooks on case s tud ies , s i t u a t i o n a l contexts and simulations is that Canadian and American "contexts" are not iden t i ca l . I t must be remembered that the American "s i tuat ional context" is not t ransferrable. I t is not enough to merely borrow models and theories from the American planning and p o l i t i c a l context and apply them to Canadian " s i t u a t i o n s . " Canadian planning educators must be able to teach negotiation in a Canadian "context." Let 's look at a specif ic example which i l l us t ra tes th is argument. 81 "PLAN 532: Planning for Natural Resources Management," is one of the "Class A" courses ident i f ied in the survey. The course is available at U.B.C. and is taught by Anthony Dorcey (Appendix 2 ) . The " theoret ica l base" for th is course is adopted from Fisher and Ury's "Getting to Yes." However, the "s i tua t iona l context" presented in t h i s course is not adopted from an American textbook. In par t i cu la r , "Bargaining in the Governance of Pacif ic Coastal Resources: Research and Reform," by Dorcey is used as a text which i l l us t ra tes aspects of the Canadian "context." Consequently, the design of t h i s course takes advantage of ex is t ing " theoret ical bases" and provides students with insights into the Canadian " s i t u a t i o n . " According to Lewicki, case studies and simulations are the prime methods considered useful i n order to demonstrate the s i t u a t i o n a l "context." The course described above re l ies pr imar i ly on the case study method to present the Canadian "s i tua t ion . " Simulations and ro le plays are used, in the example above, mainly to practice negotiation styles based on exist ing " theoret ical bases." Simulated Negotiation Exercises Canadian and American respondents both indicated that simulated negotiation exercises or role plays were an important aspect of t he i r course design. There appears to be a consensus among negot ia t ion educators that "the primary vehicle for introducing actual negotiat ion behavior in class is through role playing and simulations" (Lewicki, 1986, 19) . Courses tha t blend theory and s k i l l s t r a i n i n g provide students w i t h a " l e a r n i n g environment where n e g o t i a t i o n s k i l l s , 82 techniques, and theory can be practiced and developed" (Coleman, 1980, 480). Based on a br ie f review of the l i te ra tu re on teaching negot iat ion, the main advantages or a t t r i b u t e s of using simulated nego t ia t i on exercises include: (1) Educators can use simulat ion exercises " to breakdown the s k i l l development process into i t s component parts" (Lewicki, 1986, 17). Simulations can be designed to approximate r e a l i t y , i . e . , to depict the environmental or s i tuat ional context. These exercises provide s tudents w i t h an o p p o r t u n i t y to t r a n s l a t e t h e i r s c h o l a r l y understanding of negotiation theory into pract ice. (2) Students are given an opportunity to practice and develop s k i l l s , t r y out d i f fe rent negotiation s ty les, approaches and experiment with new behaviors in a "safe" environment. (3) Students are given a rare opportunity to receive an object ive evaluat ion, feedback or "on the spot" debriefing regarding the i r n e g o t i a t i n g s k i l l s , from the i n s t r u c t o r and other s tudents . Planners w i l l rarely receive such an analysis in real l i f e (Edwards and White, 1977; Menkel-Meadow, 1983; Tractenberg, 1984; Lewicki, 1986). Based on the preceding analysis of resu l ts , simulated negotiat ion exercises can be ident i f ied as an important d i rect ion for future research and curr icu la development. At th is time, while there is a great deal of material on simulations available from the United States, very l i t t l e of i t is applicable to the Canadian "s i tuat ional context." PART FOUR: SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 84 The fol lowing discussion summarizes sal ient f indings and provides conclusions based on the two main research streams used to complete th is study. Once again th is thesis is based on: (1) a mu l t i -d i sc ip l ina ry l i t e r a t u r e review focussing on the role of negotiation in planning and (2) a survey-ques t ionna i re on negot ia t ion and dispute r e s o l u t i o n cur r icu la in North American planning schools. In par t i cu la r , the fol lowing remarks are aimed at the two or ig ina l research questions I proposed in Part One, under the "Research Goal" heading. I deal with these research questions by providing a r e l a t i v e l y concise answer followed by a br ie f discussion. What is the Role of Negotiation in Urban, Regional and Resources  Planning? The dict ionary defines a role in two ways: " 1 . A part or character taken by an actor . 2. Any assumed character of func t ion" (Funk & Wagnalls, 1969, 578). Both of these def in i t ions serve my purpose here. Let me rephrase the or ig inal research question in three ways. F i r s t , "What function does negotiation serve?" As indicated in Part Two, the functions of negotiation are: (1) the development of speci f ic agreements, (2) the development of po l ic ies , roles and obl igat ions and (3) the mediation of social change (P ru i t t , 1981). Second, "Do planners take on the part or character of a negotiator?" Yes, planners take on the role of negotiator in order to f u l f i l l the requirements of the job, s i tua t ion , or a " funct ion." I t is important to recognize that : 85 The p l a n n i n g process t y p i c a l l y i n v o l v e s the performance of a number of roles . . . Some planners w i l l make a career in only one of these ro les; most, however, w i l l perform several of them at d i f fe ren t stages of t h e i r l i v e s . In a l l phases of t h e i r careers , planners w i l l f i nd tha t planning is an in terd isc ip l inary profession, and they w i l l draw upon the resources and expert ise of a wide var ie ty of f i e l d s " (Patton & Reed, 1986, v 1 i ) . Third, "What do urban, regional and resources planners do?" Table 2 summarizes the "Major Roles for Planners." As noted above, most planners perform several of these roles at d i f fe rent stages. Urban, Regional and Resources Planning is a problem solving profession that is dedicated to serving the "publ ic i n t e r e s t . " However, d i f f e r e n t social groups in soc ie t y o f t e n have competing ob jec t i ves and any s ing le planning in tervent ion cannot possibly benef i t everyone (Davidoff, 1965). " In dealing wi th the formulat ion of a l ternat ive plans, the planner often func t ions as mediator between c o n f l i c t i n g community object ives and presents the best al ternat ive based on professional judgement" (Patton & Reed, 1986, v i i ) . Planners use persuasion when they are convinced that the i r proposed plan is correct. Persuasion involves "se l l ing a plan" or "teaching a plan" (Friedman, 1966; Churchman, 1968; Rabinowitz, 1969; Alexander, 1979). Furthermore, planners part ic ipate in contentious and adversarial bargaining to "get what they want" (Meyerson & Banfield, 1955; Davidoff, 1965). However, planners also seek to reach "consensus" and "durable agreements" (Susskind & Ozawa, 1984). Planners s t r ive to achieve "terms which are viewed as mutually advantageous" (Meyerson & Banf ield, 1955, 307). 86 What do planners do? Planners negotiate agreements. DISCUSSION My review of negotiation in planning provides evidence of a growing in te res t in t h i s r o l e . The ro le of planner as negotiator has been elevated to a more conspicuous posi t ion in the 1980's. Many factors can be ident i f ied as contr ibuting to the current momentum in the "planner negotiator fashion" which has emerged. In Part Two, I propose and develop a basic model of negotiat ion as a foundation s k i l l . I suggest that negotiation is needed at a l l levels of planning pract ice. Even the entry level technical planner negotiates with superiors, co-workers and possibly with c l ients or members of the pub l i c . However, "planners can expect advancement into posit ions of respons ib i l i ty " (Patton & Reed, 1986, v i i i ) . The resul ts of my informal "Job Advertisement Survey" provide a hint of where negot ia t ing s k i l l s are essential in planning. Senior or managerial planners require negotiat ing exper t ise. The theore t i ca l d iscussion, presented in Part Two, examines the ro le of planner as manager. "Negotiat ion l i es at the core of a manager's job" (Lax & Sebenius, 1986, 2 ) . Based on the theoret ical perspectives advanced in Part Two, two of the most important factors contr ibut ing to the emergence of the "p lanner-negot iator" are: (1) the increasing importance of management in public planning and (2) the view that planning work is i m p l i c i t l y p o l i t i c a l and that negotiation is a p o l i t i c a l s k i l l . Let me elaborate fu r ther , beginning with the f i r s t factor iden t i f ied above. Planning is r e l a t e d to management by d e f i n i t i o n , i . e . , 87 "management is the ef fect ive implementation of planning" (Carrol , 1984, Forward to S la te r ) . An analysis of the "Major Roles for Planners" (Table 2) and the "Major Roles for Managers" (Table 3) indicates that there is a close theore t ica l l inkage between the addi t ional planning ro les and managerial ro les. The most obvious s im i la r i t y is that both "professions" claim to include the role of negotiator. A closer look at planning and management theory reveals that both depend on communication and decis ion making s k i l l s . Surveys have cons is tent ly shown that the a b i l i t y to communicate is the manager's number one problem. Oral communication consumes up to 80 percent of a manager's time (Stoner, 1982; Whetten & Cameron, 1984; Robbins & Stuart-Kotze, 1986). This coincides w i th the emphasis by many planning t h e o r i s t s on the ro le of planner as communicator (Friedman, 1973; Forestor, 1980). Dec is ion making i s synonymous w i t h management. P lann ing , organizing, leading, and contro l l ing are the functions of management and each function involves decision making (Simon, 1960; Stoner, 1982). This coincides with the emphasis on "rat ional decision making" in planning theory, i . e . , i t is the most widely accepted theory and the usual point of departure (Alexander, 1984). Negotiation is related to communication and decision making by d e f i n i t i o n . Negotiation theory is a subset of a l l communication theory and i t is a subset of a l l decision making theory. In professional planning, communication, decision making and negotiation are p o l i t i c a l , i . e . , "governance at some level is a problem which planners work on" (Baum, 1983, 60). 88 This brings me to the second major fac tor i d e n t i f i e d , in t h i s thes is , as contr ibut ing to the emergence of the "planner-negotiator." Planning practice has been described as having an "organic re lat ionship to the requirements of p o l i t i c a l pract ice" and negot iat ion has been iden t i f i ed as a key p o l i t i c a l s k i l l required in professional planning (Friedman, 1987, 11; Meyerson and Banf ie ld , 1955; Rabinovitz, 1969). Planning theor i s ts such as Baum, Forestor, Schon and Susskind have suggested examining the way planners are t rained in communication, negot iat ion, management and p o l i t i c a l s k i l l s . F ina l ly , in Part Two, I emphasize people or interpersonal s k i l l s as a basic requirement for ef fect ive negotiation and c o n f l i c t management. "Because negot iat ion is an in te rac t ion between persons, the personal element is of great importance" (Nyerges, 1987, 24). How Are Planning Schools Preparing Their Students for the Negotiating  Skill Requirements of Planning Practice? Let me rephrase th is question in two ways. F i r s t , "Do planning schools teach negot iat ion or dispute resolut ion?," and i f so, "which schools do?" Second, "What can be said about the design or contents of these courses?" Start ing with "which schools do," results of my survey show that at least 4 planning schools in Canada provide one or more courses with a substant ia l negot iat ion or dispute resolut ion content. The schools iden t i f ied in th is survey are: (1) U.B.C, (2) Ryerson, (3) Toronto, and (4) York. At least 16 univers i t ies in the United States of fer negotiat ion or dispute resolut ion curr icula in planning. Exhibit 2 l i s t s 11 of these 89 schools. The 1986 "Associat ion of Col leg ia te Schools of Planning Membership roster" indicates that there are 103 American members. This means that at least 15 percent of these schools of fer one or more courses wi th a substant ial negot iat ion or dispute reso lu t ion content. This compares with about 25 percent for Canada. Harvard's "Kennedy School of Government" was the f i r s t to o f fe r negot iat ion courses fo r planning and publ ic administrat ion students. This occurred in 1972. Other schools did not fol low th i s lead u n t i l 1981-1982. My f indings indicate that there has been a good deal of cur r icu la development between 1981-1987 in th is area. In response to the o r ig ina l query regarding the preparat ion of planner-negotiators, about half of a l l Canadian planning schools provide at least a few negotiation sessions. That leaves the other ha l f . Only 25 percent provide a "substantial amount" of negotiation course work.' There is a great deal of room for fur ther growth and development. Turning to the United States, Harvard and M.I.T. probably have the most advanced curr icu la development in th is area. I t appears as though most American planning schools are not providing e x p l i c i t negotiat ion ins t ruc t ion , i . e . , up to 85 percent. Again, th is leaves room for growth in the number of schools providing th is type of ins t ruc t ion . Next, I focus on the design and contents of exist ing courses. The most s ign i f icant f inding regarding course content is that most of these courses are based on the pr inc ip les and ideas found in two popular "nego t ia t i on b ib les " - namely: (1) GETTING TO YES: Negot ia t ing Agreement Without Giving In , by Fisher and Ury, and (2) THE ART AND SCIENCE OF NEGOTIATION, by Ra i f fa . An analysis of the theore t i ca l 90 contents of schools surveyed shows that these courses are based on the cooperative, problem solving approach advocated in these two books. In Part Three of th is thesis, I ident i fy two potent ial problems with the theoret ical emphasis of these courses. F i r s t , I suggest that a more "balanced" perspective is needed for ef fect ive negotiat ion. Lax and Sebenius (1986) provide th is perspective. Their approach to negotiat ion theory and practice suggests that : A deeper a n a l y s i s shows t h a t c o m p e t i t i v e and cooperative elements are inextr icably entwined. In pract ice, they cannot be separated. This bonding is fundamentally important to the analysis, s t ructur ing and conduct of negot ia t ion. There is a cen t ra l , inescapable tension between cooperative moves that create value j o i n t l y and competitive moves to gain individual advantage. This tension affects v i r t u a l l y a l l t a c t i c a l and s t ra teg ic choice. Analysts must come to grips with i t ; negotiators must manage i t . Neither denial nor discomfort w i l l make i t disappear, (1986, 30). Second, I ident i fy a potential problem with the d i rec t ion Canadian planning schools have taken in adopting "American Style" negot iat ion. Based on the analysis presented in Part Three, the main advantage of adopting American style " theoret ical bases" is that they provide a useful theore t ic foundation to build on. The main disadvantage of adopting American textbooks is tha t the American and Canadian " s i t u a t i o n a l contexts" are not iden t ica l . In conclusion, Dinell and Goody provide a useful synopsis regarding dispute resolut ion content in planning school cur r i cu la . The courses range across a broad spectrum and serve a var iety of needs. Some of the courses are short with a strong emphasis on application s k i l l . . . Others, at 91 the opposite end of the spectrum deal with underlying theory . . . The vast m a j o r i t y of courses f a l l somewhere between . . . The majority of courses focus on land use, environmental or development disputes . . . the seminar is by far the most popular format. (1987, 19-20). My survey confirms these findings and adds to the depth of analysis provided by Dinell and Goody's "NIDR Source Book." DISCUSSION The analysis presented in Part Three of t h i s thesis i d e n t i f i e s several obstacles to expanded teaching and study of negot ia t ion and dispute reso lu t ion . Apart from the usual i n s t i t u t i o n a l res is tance, resource l i m i t a t i o n s and skept ic ism on the part of some planning educators, the most immediate obstacle is the lack of qua l i f ied planner-negotiator educators. "Only a small number of un ivers i t ies at t h i s time of fer dispute resolut ion degree programs or concentrations" (Crohn, 1985, 301) . C u r r e n t l y , to overcome t h i s d i f f i c u l t y , Canadian planning educators must depend on nondegree-related t ra in ing such as seminars, workshops and ce r t i f i ca te programs (for example, see Appendix 4) to learn techniques which enable them to teach negotiating s k i l l s . Negotiation i ns t ruc t i on offered in other d i sc ip l i na ry se t t ings , such as law and management, should be considered in ter im r e l i e f and an immediately available source of negotiation t ra in ing . Hence, potent ia l planner-negotiator t ra iners face a large task. F i r s t , in many cases, they must upgrade the i r knowledge of negotiat ion theory and pract ice s k i l l s . Second, they must design and propose a course. Third, they must overcome ins t i tu t iona l obstacles and skepticism 92 on the part of some facul ty members. Assessing the Training Needs According to the theoret ical views advanced in Section Two, senior level planning-managing posit ions were singled out as being the most l i k e l y to require negotiation expertise. Most pract i t ioners have had l i t t l e or no previous negotiation Inst ruct ion. On-the-job t ra in ing does not usually deal with the development of negotiating s k i l l s . Planning analysts such as Hoch & Cibulskis warn planners of the dangers they face, i . e . , "job threatening p o l i t i c a l con f l i c t " (1987, 99). What type of t ra in ing is available for pract i t ioners to help save the i r jobs? What about programs designed spec i f ica l ly for pract i t ioners rather than students? Appendix 4 provides the course prospectus for an executive level workshop. In 1980, The Banff Centre, School of Management, began o f f e r i n g execu t i ve l e v e l workshops on "Env i ronmenta l C o n f l i c t Resolution." An updated seminar has been offered every year since then. As suggested in Part One of th is thesis, reasonable standards of competence can be achieved by providing planners with a basic level of negotiation and s k i l l t ra in ing . Two major strategies can be adopted by t r a i n i n g designers: (1) development of continuing education short courses, seminars or workshops and (2) development of on-the-job t ra in ing methods such as coach ing , performance a p p r a i s a l feedback and apprenticeships. Meanwhile, because negotiation is a foundation s k i l l fo r planners, i t should be part of the required curriculum for planning students. 93 GUIDELINES FOR TEACHING NEGOTIATION I t 1s assumed that a planner's or planning student's negotiat ion behavior is a product of previous experience and learning h i s t o r y . However, psychologist and educator Wayne Weiten indicates t h a t . what is learned can be unlearned . . . bad habits that have been acquired through cond i t ion ing can be dislodged through reconditioning (1983, 139). Learning can be defined as "any permanent change in behavior that occurs as a resul t of experience" (Robbins and Stuart-Kotze, 1986, 109). " E x p e r i e n c e " i nc ludes formal e d u c a t i o n , work and o the r " l i f e experiences." The key point for educators designing planner-negotiator courses is t h a t "what we know about how people learn should be incorporated into t ra in ing programs" (Beatty and Schneier, 1982, 318). A. Focus on Behavior Planning educators such as Baum and Hightower help to explain the need to focus on behavior when they state: Expertise entai ls both a way of thinking and a way of acting (Baum, 1983, 259). Professionalism refers to an at t i tude and a type of behavior (Hightower, 1983, 109). Consequently, "behavioral objectives help planners focus on the end resu l t of t ra in ing : behavioral change" (Beatty and Schneier, 1982, 316). Therefore, the natural question which emerges when designing a course or program for planner-negotiators is "What type of negotiation behavior is desirable in professional planning?" 94 B. Relate Negotiation Training to Planning Context The t ransfer of learning from t ra in ing environment (a univers i ty classroom) to the work environment (urban, regional and resources planning) is f a c i l i t a t e d by designing courses which approximate the "environmental" or " s i t u a t i o n a l " context (Beatty and Schneier, 1982; Lewicki, 1986). Consequently, planner-negotiator theory and t ra in ing should r e f l e c t the pract ice environment for urban, regional and resources planning. This environment can be characterized as " p o l i t i c a l " and "organizat ional" (Friedman, 1987; Baum, 1983). The issue of "power" in planning negotiations is v i t a l . C. Use Simulation Exercises Robert House, in his a r t i c l e on "Experiential Learning: A Social Lea rn ing Theory A n a l y s i s , " i n d i c a t e s t h a t the development of communicating, c o n f l i c t managing and interpersonal s k i l l s "depends on learning the appropriate types of behavior." House explains: The development of such s k i l l s r e q u i r e s an opportunity for the student to practice the knowledge he or she learns from reading or hearing lectures. The need for th is practice not only j u s t i f i e s , but requires that he or she be exposed to simulated problem si tuat ions . . . Such simulations are current ly referred to as "experiential learning" tasks (1982, 24). D. Provide Feedback Simulated nego t ia t i on exercises provide p a r t i c i p a n t s w i th an opportuni ty to pract ice and improve t h e i r p ro f ic iency . Posi t ive or negative feedback and "on-the-spot" debriefing regarding the resul ts of 95 one's e f f o r t s is a v i t a l aspect of negot iat ion t ra in ing (Beatty and Schneier, 1982; Lewicki, 1986). Feedback provides a mechanism fo r "shaping" appropriate planner-negotiator behavior. "Shaping" refers to learning that takes place in graduated steps. This includes " t r i a l and error" or "learning by mistakes" (Robbins and Stuart-Kotze, 1986). Feedback can be used to d i rect part ic ipants to observe and "model" the negotiation behavior of role models (use of video or ins t ruct iona l f i l m s ) . "Modeling can produce complex behavioral change quite rapid ly" (Robbins and Stuart-Kotze, 1986, 354). CONCLUDING COMMENTS The period between 1981-1986 was a re la t i ve ly productive time fo r nego t ia t ion and dispute reso lu t i on c u r r i c u l a development in North American planning schools. This work, and the " theore t ica l bases" established by researchers from Harvard Universi ty, has set the agenda for future research. Given the importance of negotiation to professional planners, closer at tent ion should be paid to gaining expertise in th is s k i l l . 96 REFERENCES Alexander, E.R. 1979. "Planning Roles and Contexts", Introduction to  Urban Planning, ed. A. Catanese and J . Snyder. New York: McGraw H i l l . 1984. "Af ter Rational i ty What? A Review of Responses to Paradigm Breakdown", American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1. Winter 1984, pp. 62-69. Alterman, Rachelle and MacRae, Duncan Jr . 1983. "Planning and Policy Ana lys is : Converging or Diverging Trends?" American Planning  Association Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2. Spring 1983, pp. 200-215. Andersen, Kenneth E. 1971. Persuasion Theory and Practice. Boston Mass.: Al lyn and Baron Inc. Bacow, Lawrence S. and Wheeler, Michael. 1984. Environmental Dispute  Resolution. New York: Plenum Press. Banf ield, Edward. 1973. "Ends and Means in Planning", in A Reader in  Planning Theory, ed. A. Faludi. New York: Pergamon. pp. 139-149. Reprinted from International Social Science Journal, Vol. X I . No. 3. 1959. Baum, Howell S. 1983. Planners and Public Expectations. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman Pub. Co. Inc. B e a t t y , Richard W. and Schne ier , Craig E. 1981. Personnel  Admin is t ra t i on : An E x p e r i e n t i a l / S k i l l - B u i l d i n g Approach. Don M i l l s , Ontario: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary A. 1964. Human Behavior: An  Inventory of Sc ien t i f i c Findings. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Boulding, Kenneth E. 1962. Confl ict and Defense: A General Theory. New York: American Arb i t ra t ion Association. Churchman, CW. 1979. The Systems Approach. 2nd ed. New York: Dell (Orig: 1968). Coleman, Nancy A. 1980. "Teaching the Theory and Practice of Bargaining to Lawyers and Students," Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 30. No. 4-5. pp. 470-491. Crohn, Madeleine. 1985. "Dispute Resolution and Higher Education," Negotiation Journal, Vol. 1 No. 4. October, pp. 301-306. Davidoff, Paul. 1973. "Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning", in A Reader  in Planning Theory, ed. A. Faludi. New York: Pergamon. Reprinted from Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, Vol . 31 . 97 November, 1965. D l n e l l , Tom and Goody, John. 1987. A Source Book on Dispute Resolution  In Planning School Curr icula. Washington D.C: National I n s t i t u t e of Dispute Resolution and Association of Col legiate Schools of Planning. Dorcey, Anthony, H.J. 1983. "Coastal Management as a Bargaining Process", Coastal Zone Management Journal, Vol. 11. No. 1-2. pp. 13-39. 1986. Bargaining in the Governance of Paci f ic Coastal  Resources: Research and Reform. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Centre, University of Br i t i sh Columbia. Dorcey, Anthony, H.J. and R1ek, Christine L. 1987. "Negotiation-Based Approaches to the Settlement of Environmental Disputes in Canada", proceedings from conference The Place of Negot ia t ion in EIA  Processes: I n s t i t u t i o n a l Considerations, Canadian Environmental Assessment Research Council. Toronto. Dror, Yehezkel. 1973. "The Planning Process: A Facet Design", in A Reader in Planning Theory, ed. A. Faludi . New York: Pergamon. pp.323-343. Reprinted from International Review of Administrative  Sciences, Vol. 29. 1963. Edwards, Harry T. and White, James J. 1977. The Lawyer as a Negotiator:  Problems Readings and Materials. St. Paul, Minn.: West Pub. Co. Fisher, Roger and Ury, Wi l l iam. 1981. Getting to Yet: Negotiating  Agreement Without Giving In . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . Fisher, Roger. 1983. "Negotiating Power: Getting and Using Inf luence", American Behavioral Scient is t , Vol. 27. No. 2. pp. 149-166. Fisher, Roger and Davis Wayne D. 1987. "Six Basic Interpersonal Sk i l l s for a Negotiators Repertoire," Negotiation Journal, Vol . 3. No. 2. Apr i l 1987, pp. 117-204. Forester, John. 1980. "Cr i t i ca l Theory and Planning Pract ice", American  Planning Associat ion Journa l , Vol . 46. No. 3. July 1980, pp. 275-286. 1987. "Planning in the Face of Conf l ic t : Negotiation and Mediat ion Strategies in Local Land Use Regula t ion" , American  Planning Association Journal, Vol . 53. No. 3. Summer 1987, pp. 303-314. Friedman, John. 1966. "Planning as a Vocation (Part 1) , Plan, Vol. 6. No. 3. 98 1973. Retrackinq America: A Theory of Transactive Planning. New York: Doubleday and Co. Friedman, John and Hudson, Barclay. 1974. "Knowledge and Act ion: A Guide to Planning Theory", Journal of the American Ins t i t u te of  Planners, Vol. 40. No. 1. pp. 2-16. Friedman, John. 1979. The Good Society. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to  Act ion. Princeton, New Jersy: Princeton University Press. Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary: Volume 2 N-Z. 1969. ed. S. Landau. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Pub. Hightower, Henry. 1983. "The profession needs leadership more than regu la t ion , " in "Comments on the Prospects for Planning Report," PLAN CANADA, Vol. 22. No. 3/4. March 1983, pp. 107-111. Hoch, Charles and C ibu lsk i s , Ann. 1987. "Planning Threatened: A Preliminary Report of Planners and Po l i t i ca l Con f l i c t " , Journal of  Planning Education and Research, Vol. 6. No. 2. Winter 1987, pp. 99-107. Hodges, A l lan A. 1985. "Career Advancement in Spite of Planning Education", American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 51. No. 1. Winter 1985, pp. 4-5. House, Robert J . 1982. "Experient ial Learning: A Social Learning Theory Ana lys i s , " in Management Education: Issues in Theory,  Research and Pract ice, ed. R.D. Freedman, C.L. Cooper and S.A. Stumpf. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 23-43. Hudson, Barclay M. 1979. "Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradict ions", American Planning Associat ion  Journal, Vol. 45. No. 4. October 1979, pp. 387-398. Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. 1978. The Social Psychology of  Organizations. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons (Orig: 1966). Katz, Robert. 1974. "Sk i l l s of an Effect ive Administrator", Harvard  Business Review, Vol. 52. No. 5. September-October 1974, pp. 90-102. Klauss, Rudi and Bass, Bernard M. 1982. Interpersonal Communication in  Organizations. New York: Academic Press. Lax, David A. and Sebenius, James K. 1986. The Manager as Negotiator:  Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: The Free Press. 99 Lee, Robert and Lawrence, Peter. 1985. Organizational Behavior:  Po l i t i cs At Work. London: Hutchinson and Co. Pub. Ltd. Lewicki, Roy J. 1986. "Challenges of Teaching Negotiat ion", Negotiation Journal, Vol. 2. No. 1. January 1986, pp. 15-28. Lindblom, Charles E. 1973. "The Science of Muddling Through", in A Reader in Planning Theory, ed. A. Faludi . New York: Pergamon. Reprinted from Public Administration Review, Spring 1959. L i t t l e j o h n , W. Stephen. 1983. Theories of Human Communication: Second  Edi t ion. Belmont Cal i forn ia : Wadsworth Pub. Co. Marsh, R.D.V. 1984. Contract Negotiation Handbook: Second Edi t ion. Aldershot, England: Gower Pub. Co. Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1983. "Legal Negotiation: A Study of Strategies in Search of a Theory", American Bar Foundation Journal, No. 4. pp. 905-937. Meyerson, Martin and Banfield Edward C. 1955. P o l i t i c s , Planning and  the Public Interest : The Case of Public Housing in Chicago. New York: The Free Press. Mintzberg, Henry. 1973. The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: Harper & Row Pub. Minnery, J.R. 1985. Confl ict Management in Urban Planning. Aldershot, England: Gower Pub Co. Morrison, William F. 1985. The Prenegotiation Planning Book. Toronto: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Mortimer, J . Alder. 1983. How to Speak: How to Listen. New York: MacMillan Pub. Neale, A. Margaret and Bazerman, Max. H. 1985. "Perspectives f o r Understanding Negot ia t ion: Viewing Negotiation as a Judgmental Process", The Journal of Conf l ict Resolution, Vol. 29. No. 1. pp. 33-55. Nyerges, Janos. 1987. "Ten Commandments for a Negotiator", Negotiation  Journal, Vol. 3. No. 1. January 1987, pp. 21-27. Pat ton, Carl V. and Reed, Kathleen, ed. 1986. Guide to Graduate  Education in Urban and Regional Planning: F i f th Edi t ion. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. Plan Canada. 1982. Prospects for Planning: Task Force on the Future of  the Planning Profession. Spec, issue of Plan Canada, ed. Hightower, H.C. and Rashleigh T. 100 P r u i t t , Dean G. 1981. Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press. Rabinovitz, Francine. 1969. City Po l i t i cs and Planning. New York: Atherton Press. Rai f fa , Howard. 1982. The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard Univ. Press. Robbins, Stephen P. and Stuart-Kotze, Robin. 1986. Management: Concepts  and Practices. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall Canada Inc. Rubin, Jeffrey Z. 1983. "Negotiation: An Introduction to Some Issues and Themes:, American Behavioral S c i e n t i s t , Vo l . 27. No. 2. November-December 1983, pp. 133-147. Schon, Donald A. 1982. "Some of What a Planner Knows: A Case Study of Knowing-in-Pract ice", American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 48. No. 3. Summer 1982, pp. 351-364. . 1983. The Reflective Pract i t ioner: How Professionals Think in Act ion. New York: Basic Books, Inc. Simon, Herbert A. 1960. The New Science of Management Decision. New York: Harper & Row. S l a t e r , David C. 1984. Management of Local Planning. Municipal Management Series, Washington D.C: International City Management Association. Stoner, James A.F. 1982. Management: Second Edi t ion. Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Straus, Donald B. 1986. "Collaborating to Understand - Without Being a Wimp", Negotiation Journal, Vol. 2. No. 2. Apr i l 1986, pp. 155-166. Susskind, Lawrence and Ozawa Connie. 184. "Mediated Negotiation in the Publ ic Sector: The Planner As Mediator" , Journal of Planning  Education and Research, Vol. 4. August 1984, pp. 5-15. Susskind, Lawrence and McGreary, Scott. 1985. "Techniques for Resolving Coastal Resource Management Disputes Through Negotiat ion", American  Planning Association Journal, Vol. 51. No. 3. Summer 1985, pp. 365-374. Tractenberg, Paul L. 1984. "Training Lawyers to be More Ef fect ive Dispute Preventers and Dispute Se t t l e r s : Advocating f o r Non-Adversarial S k i l l s , " Missouri Journal of Dispute Resolution, Vol. 1984. 101 Weiten, Wayne. 1983. Psychology Applied to Modern L i fe : Adjustment in  the 80s. Monterey, Cal i forn ia : Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Whetten, David A. and Cameron, Kim S. 1984. Developing Management  Ski 1 I s . Glenview, I l l i n o i s : Scott Foresman and Co. Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. " I f Planning is Every th ing, Maybe I t ' s Nothing", Policy Sciences, Vol. 4. No. 2. June 1973, pp. 127-153. Will iams, Gerald R. 1983. Legal Negotiation and Settlement. St. Paul Minn.: West Pub. Co. APPENDIX 1 JOB SURVEY ADVERTISEMENTS SCARBOROUGH PLANNING DEPARTMENT Recent e x p a n s i o n of the Planning Depar tment has resu l ted in the fo l lowing j ob oppor tun i t ies : PRINCIPAL PLANNER ($44,780-$55,975) The St ra teg ic P lann ing and Admin is t ra t ion Oivision requ i res a highly mot iva ted Pr inc ipal P lanner to under take , manage, and co-ord inate the Off ic ia l Plan and Zon ing By- law Review, and Specia l S tud ies re la ted to hous ing , employment , env i ronment and commun i t y faci l i t ies. SENIOR PLANNERS ($40,540-$50,675) The Commun i t y P lanning Divis ion requi res 2 h ighly mot ivated Senior P lanners to review, evaluate and repor t on ati types of deve lopment app l ica t ions in a highly profess ional and exped i -t ious manner . R e q u i r e m e n t s : Candidates must possess s t rong wr i t ten and verbal c o m m u n i -cat ion ski l ls, pol i t ica l astuteness, comp lex p rob lem solving and negot ia t ion ski l ls, init iat ive, technica l abi l i ty, p roduc t or ientat ion, a n d a proven reco rd of ach ievement . Env i ronmen-tal p lann ing expe r ience wou ld be an asset. App l icants mus t have educat ion and exper ience equal to a graduate d e g r e e in p lann ing , arch i tec ture or re la ted f ield w i th a min imum of 3 years (Senior) or 5 years (Pr inc ipal ) relevant exper ience , or, an undergraduate degree in p lann ing , a rch i -tec ture or re la ted f ie ld wi th a min imum of 5 years (Senior) or 7 years (Pr inc ipal ) relevant exper ience . Membersh ip in C.I.P. p re fer red . Forward resume referr ing to speci f ic pos i t ion appl ied for by December 1 1 , 1 9 8 7 to the D i rec to r o f S t a f f i n g , C i t y o f S c a r b o r o u g h , 1 5 0 B o r o u g h Dr ive , S c a r b o r o u g h , O n t a r i o M 1 P 4 N 7 . A N E Q U A L OPPORTUNITY E M P L O Y E R CITY OF SCARBOROUGH • ONTARIO CITY OF VANCOUVER DEVELOPMENT PLANNER The Development Planner, as a member of a small professional team, is responsible for consultation, negotiation, analysis and development of urban design concepts for major developments throughout the City. This will include responding to inquiries leading to development permit applications by architects and developers, the detailed review of major development permit applications and negotiation of required changes based on planning policies, by-laws and design guidelines. A signifi-cant portion of the work involves acting as secretary and providing professional advice to the Urban Design Panel and First Shaughnessy Advisory Design Panel. Candidates will be university graduates in architecture, prefer-ably with a post-graduate degree in Urban Design or Planning. They will have considerable professional experience in archi-tectural and urban design work. Experience servicing a design committee, panel or board and multi-disciplinary team experi-ence would be beneficial. A high degree of competence and versatility in design and communications skills is required. Membership or eligibility for membership in the Architectural Institute of British Columbia and the Planning Institute of British Columbia is desirable. The salary is $35,688 to $42,552 per annum. Applications should be obtained from and returned to the Direc-tor of Personnel Services, City of Vancouver, 453 West 12th Avenue, Vancouver, B.C., V5Y 1V4, preferably together with a detailed resume of education and experience. Please quote competition number 87-6809. This position is open to male and female candidates. 8 ~ CITY OF VANCOUVER in SENIOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNER 39' This senior member of the Zoning Division is responsible for consulta-tion, negotiation,, analysis and development of urban design concepts for major development proposals throughout the city. The principal focus will be to give preliminary advice to architects and developers preparing, development permit applications; to review major development permit applications and negotiate required changes based on City planning poli-cies, by-laws and design guidelines;.and to prepare reports and make presentations to the Development Permit Board and City Council as re-quired. These activities will involve extensive contact with architects, developers, consultants and special interest groups. The position also in-volves the management and direction of two other professional develop-ment planners and related administrative work. Candidates will be university graduates in Architecture, preferably with a post-graduate degree in Urban Design or Community and Regional Planning. They will have considerable professional experience in related architectural, planning or urban design work with sjjjnificant superviso-ry and administrative experience. The salary is $42,696 to $50,916 per annum. Applications should be obtained from and returned, preferably together with a detailed resume of education and experience, to the Director of Personnel Services, Vancouver City Hall, 453 West 12th Avenue, Vancou-ver, B.C., V5Y1V4. Please quote competition number 85-6031. This posi-tion is open to male and female applicants. VANCOUVER-1886-1986 Lnj—V celebration of the century APPENDIX 2 NEGOTIATION CURRICULA SURVEY: CANADIAN PLANNING SCHOOLS LISTING OF PLANNING COURSES WITH NEGOTIATION RELATED CONTENT: CANADA (Class "A" Planning Schools only . . . see Table 4. for c lass i f i ca t ion ) (1) U.B.C. (1987) / GETTING TO YES IN PLANNING: A Non-credit course on negotiation - s ix 90 minute sessions . . . an in t roduct ion to basic negot ia t ion s k i l l s . / Planning 532-001, PLANNING FOR WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT - f u l l course on water resources management . . . par t icu lar a t tent ion is given to the development of oral and wr i t ten communication s k i l l s . "Get t ing to Yes: Negot iat ing Agreement Without Giving I n " , is required reading and course emphasizes bargaining in governance. Grading: Part ic ipat ion 15% / Planning 532-002, PLANNING FOR NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT - f u l l course on natural resources management . . . substantial emphasis on the role of bargaining, mediation and con f l i c t reso lu t ion. Grading: Part ic ipat ion (Bargaining & Oral Communication) 20% (2) RYERSON (1986) / UPN 520: BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS - f u l l course on fundamentals of pr incipled negotiations (see t h i s Appendix fo r complete course descr ip t ion , ou t l i ne and reading l i s t ) . Project Exercises 25% 60% Exercises 80% Grading: Part ic ipat ion 10% Journal 65% Quiz 25% LISTING OF PLANNING COURSES CONT. (3) TORONTO (1986) / PLA 1930s - RESOLVING URBAN LAND USE CONFLICTS - f u l l course on land use planning which re l ies on negot iat ion, c o n f l i c t analysis, con f l i c t resolut ion and mediation. / PLA 1005H: DECISION ANALYSIS - f u l l course on decision making techniques including mathematical and computer app l i ca t i on . . . ora l communication and negot ia t ion are stressed in an analy t ica l /quant i ta t ive perspective . . . "The Art and Science of Negotiation" (Rai f fa, 1982) is required reading. Grading: Exam 28% (4) YORK (1986) / New course introduced in 1986/87 in environmental negotiation and mediation (no description provided). Grading: Part ic ipat ion Discussion Project 2 Projects 10% 10% 80% 4 Assignments 72% 113 Week 4: N e g o t i a t i n g i n t e g r a t i v e agreements; team b u i l d i n g and the two t a b l e d problem; Gaming E x e r c i s e #6: S e t t l e or S t r i k e Week 5: M u l t i - i n t e r e s t s , j o i n t gains and concensus-building; Gaming E x e r c i s e #7: Superport Week 6: Views and counterviews of p r i n c i p l e d n e g o t i a t i o n s ; The r o l e of the planner as n e g o t i a t o r and mediator. READINGS F i s h e r and Ury, G e t t i n g to Yes: N e g o t i a t i n g Agreement Without  G i v i n g In. James White, "The Pros and Cons of G e t t i n g to yes", J o u r n a l of  Legal Education. W i l l i a m McCarthy, "The Role of Power and P r i n c i p l e i n G e t t i n g to Yes", N e g o t i a t i o n J o u r n a l . Howard R a i f f a , The A r t and Science of N e g o t i a t i o n . Dean P r u i t t , "Acheiving I n t e g r a t i v e Agreement" i n Ne g o t i a t i n g i n  Or g a n i z a t i o n . J e f f r e y Rubin, The Sciences. "Caught by choice" Lawrence Suskind and Connie Ozawa, "Mediated N e g o t i a t i o n i n the P u b l i c Sector", American Behavioural S c i e n t i s t . Lawrence Suskind, The Uses of N e g o t i a t i o n and Mediation i n  Environmental Impact Assessment. 114 TEACHING MODES T h i s six-week s e c t i o n of the t h i r d year p l a n n i n g s t u d i o w i l l be p r e s e n t e d as a c o m b i n a t i o n of l e c t u r e s and gaming e x e r c i s e s i n which the s t u d e n t s are a l l expected t o p a r t i c i p a t e . M a t e r i a l s f o r each e x e r c i s e w i l l be handed out a t the a p p o i n t e d t i m e , and each s e t of i n s t r u c t i o n s w i l l be s e l f c o n t a i n e d and must be f o l l o w e d . EVALUATION SCHEME T h i s h a l f of UPN 520 w i l l account f o r 50% of the f i n a l c o u r s e grade. The breakdown f o r t h i s 50% i s as f o l l o w s : - C l a s s p a r t i c i p a t i o n 10% - A j o u r n a l t o be kept by each s t u d e n t which documents the r e s u l t s of each gaming e x e r c i s e . 65% - F i n a l q u i z 25% APPENDIX 3 NEGOTIATION CURRICULA SURVEY: U.S.A. PLANNING SCHOOLS 117 ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS OF PLANNING (1985 - 86, U.S.A.) RESPONDING SCHOOLS (1) Department of City and Regional Planning University of Cal i fornia Berkeley, Cal i fornia 94720 (2) Department of Urban and Regional Planning The Florida State University Tallahassee, Florida 32306 (3) City Planning Program Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 (4) Department of Urban and Regional Planning Program University of Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 (5) Department of Urban Studies and Planning Massachusetts Ins t i tu te of Technology Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 (6) Department of Urban and Regional Planning The University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin 53706 LISTING OF PLANNING COURSES WITH NEGOTIATION RELATED CONTENT (U.S.A. ) (1) University of Ca l i fo rn ia , Berkeley Department of City & Regional Planning CP281: Techniques In Mediation, Group Process & Confl ict Resolution Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (1.5/4/22) Synopsis: The promise of th is course is that students who attend a l l sessions and act ively engage in class exercises w i l l improve the i r s k i l l s in group problem solving and decision making. The central theme is that there are specif ic techniques one can learn to help improve group processes which can improve the p lann ing and implementat ion s tages . This is a s k i l l development course in act ive l i s t e n i n g , c l a r i f y i n g , process planning, con f l i c t preventions/interventions and negot iat ion. Grading: Not indicated. (2) Florida State University Department of Urban & Regional Planning URP 5939: Bargaining & Negotiation Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (1/5/13.75) Synopsis: This is a short course on "how-to" improve the outcomes in con f l i c t s i tuat ions. The emphasis is on principled negotiat ion i .e . negotiation for cooperation and mutual gains. This is a workshop course using simulation exercises supplemented with lectures and readings. Grading: Class Simulation & Part ic ipat ion 40% Journal 60% URP 5429: Environmental Dispute Resolution Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (3/15/41.25) Synopsis: The central theme is that the outcomes in contentious decision making can be improved using cooperative negotiation methods. The focus is on complex environmental disputes and land use d ispu te . Teaching methods include extensive use of case studies, lectures, readings, discussions, individual research and gaming simulations. Grading: Class Part ic ipat ion & Simulation 25% Case Study Presentation 15% Journal 30% Paper 30% (3) University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu Department of Urban & Regional Planning PLN 627: Negotiation and Mediation in Planning Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (3/15/?) Synopsis: Th is course i s designed to p rov ide s tudents w i t h an understanding of theory and processes of nego t ia t i on as practiced in the context of environmental disputes and land use c o n f l i c t s . Teaching methods used included lectures, reading, case study, discussion, role playing simulations, individual research and examinations. Grading: Class Part ic ipat ion 20% Research Project 40% Exams 20% (4) Massachusetts Ins t i tu te of Technology Department of Urban Studies and Planning 11.550: Bargaining, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in the Public Sector Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (?/26/42) Synopsis: This seminar is designed to provide students with theoret ical ideas and methods f o r c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n , n e g o t i a t i o n , f a c i l i t a t i o n , mediation and a r b i t r a t i o n . The theor ies are tested in class using case studies and gaming exercises. Grading: Journal ?% Exam ?% (5) University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Urban & Regional Planning URPL 945: Negotiation & Mediation in Land Use & Environmental Planning Credits/Number of Classes/Total Hours (3/15/30) Synopsis: This seminar's central theme is that negotiation and mediation should be considered as a new approach to produce pol icy and pol icy implementation that is e f fec t ive , equitable, in l ine with pr inciples of col laboration and compromise and avoids the need for court act ion. I t is hoped that students develop an understanding of the potentials and l imi ta t ions of negotiat ion and mediation. Teaching methods rely on lectures, readings, case study, individual research and discussion. Very l i t t l e emphasis is placed on s k i l l t ra in ing . Grading: Class Part ic ipat ion 50% Paper & Presentation 50% 121 NEGOTIATION RELATED COURSE WORK (NOT EXCLUSIVE TO PLANNING) (1) Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government M-692: Managing Negotiations (equivalent to 3 credi ts) Synopsis: This course is designed to increase students t heo re t i ca l knowledge of negotiation and con f l i c t resolut ion. I t is hoped tha t broad i n t e l l e c t u a l understanding of the nego t ia t i on process is developed and that actual s k i l l s and confidence in negotiat ions are improved. Teaching materials include case study, readings, role playing and exercises. M-121: Negotiation Analysis (equivalent to 3 credi ts) Synopsis: This course examines the art and science of negot iat ion. The cent ra l theme is that there are a number of s i m i l a r i t i e s present across many apparently diverse negotiat ions. Given these common elements, systemat ic ana lys is can help a nego t ia to r . The course develops p r e s c r i p t i v e theory and methods for negotiat ion. A wide var iety of exercises, cases, readings and lectures are used. M-229 Conf l ic t , Cooperation and Strategy (equivalent to 3 c red i ts ) Synopsis: This course presents adversar ia l as wel l as cooperat ive approaches to negotiat ion. Abstract puzzles and problems are used as a way of analyzing real issues. 123 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING URP 5939(2) Spring 1986 Bruce S t i f t e l One credit-hour Bargaining and Negotiation T 7:00-9:45pm 110RBB 4 FEB - 4 MAR ONLY General Descript ion: This short course is a p rac t i ca l , hands-on exposure to improving the outcomes in c o n f l i c t s i tua t ions , e i ther as a party to the c o n f l i c t or as a mediator. Students par t ic ipate in a series of games designed to i l l u s t r a t e the common p i t f a l l s of negotiation and methods that have proven successful to avoid these p i t f a l l s and improve outcomes. Objectives to be d i r e c t l y addressed are improving j o i n t gains - - the sum of payoffs to a l l par t ies ; improving indiv idual gains - - the payoff to one's se l f ; improving the l ike l ihood that agreements w i l l be l ived up to . Disputes discussed w i l l include simple two-party negotiations such as a r r i v ing at a price in a buy-sell t ransact ion, complex two-party negotiations such as labor-management bargaining, and complex mul t i -par ty disputes such as the s i t i n g of regional ly-desirable but locally-obnoxious f a c i l i t i e s l i ke power p lants. The emphasis w i l l be on the pr inc ip les that help achieve f a s t , superior agrements. I t is expected the short course w i l l be of most in terest to those for whom negotiation is an important aspect but not the main focus of the i r work, such as managers, administrators, lawyers, and designers. Prerequisi tes: Graduate standing, or permission of ins t ruc to r . Procedure: Classes w i l l consist pr imar i ly of workshops in which simulated conf1 icts are confronted and resolved. These workshops w i l l be supplemented by several lectures and a guest speaker. Your requirements w i l l consist of class preparation and p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and submission of a journal in which you r e f l e c t on the simulations and readings. Materials: One required text is available at B i l l ' s Bookstore (107 S. Copeland S t . ) : Roger Fisher and Will iam Ury. Getting to Yes. (Penguin, 1983 or Houghton-M i f f l i n , 19.81) In addition a series of short required readings w i l l be available for purchase at Kinko's Copies (650 W. Tennessee St . ) after 27 JAN. There is a reading assignment for the f i r s t day of c lass, described on a separate handout. In class I w i l l hand out materials to be used in the simulations. Reimbursement for these copyrighted materials should be made no la ter than the second class date (11 FEB) in the amount of $7.00 by check or money order payable to Department of Urban and Regional Planning. No cash, please. 124 Course Calendar: 4 FEB Principled Negototion GAMING: Appleton v. Baker 11 FEB GAMING: Rushing River Cleanup The Psychology of Negotiation 18 FEB GUEST SPEAKER: Jim Ramsey; Ramsey, Tyndall and Assoc., Jacksonvil le GAMING: EPA v. Riverside 25 FEB GAMING: MAPO - Administrat ive Negotiation Sources cf Power in Negotiations 4 MAR GAMING: HARBACO Concluding Notes Requirements: 1. Particpate vigorously in gaming simulations and class discussions. 2. Keep a journal in which you record comments on required readings and on the gaming simulat ions. The journal should be structured as a b r ie f ing document for 'your p iann ing 'd i rec to r ' . That i s , imagine that you are on> assignment by your agency to complete th is course with the expectation of sharing what you have learned with others in the agency, But f i r s t the agency d i rector must review the mater ia l . Provide her with a d igest ib le yet r e a l i s t i c synopsis and c r i t i que of the course mater ia ls. (Due 7 MAR) Gradi ng: Class and Simulation Par t ic ipa t ion* 40% Journal 50% 100% * A note on class pa r t i c ipa t ion : This course depends strongly on a high degree of in teract ion among the par t ic ipants . Accordingly, nothing less than f u l l attendance is expected of everyone. Persons with more than one absence w i l l be res t r i c ted to a class par t i c ipa t ion par t ia l grade below B. There w i l l be no incompletes. 125 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING URP 5939 (02) Bargaining and Negotiation Bruce S t i f t e l Spring 1986 READING LIST Session 1. 4 FEB 86 a. Fisher and Ury. Getting to Yes (Penguin, 1983). ent i re book. b. James J . White. "The pros and cons of 'Gett ing to Yes'." J . of Legal  Education. Pp. 115-124. c. Will iam McCarthy. "The role of power and pr inc ip le in 'Getting to Yes' ." Negotiation Journal. 1 (1985): 59-66. d. Roger Fisher. "Beyond Yes." Negotiation Journal. 1 (1985): 67-70. Session 2. 11 FEB 86 a. Max Bazerman. "A c r i t i c a l look at the r a t i o n a l i t y assumption." American  Behavioral Sc ient is t . 27 (1983): 211-228. b. Allan I . Teger. Too Much Invested to Quit. (Pergamon, 1980). Pp. 1-25. c. Jef f rey Z. Rubin. "Caught by choice: the psychological snares we set ourselves." The Sciences. 22 (1982): 18-21. d. Howard Rai f fa . The Art and Science of Negotiation (Harvard, 1982). Pp. 35-65. Session 3. 18 FEB 86 a. Rai f fa . Pp. 257-274. b. Lawrence Susskind and Denise Madigan. "New approaches to resolving disputes in the public sector." (mms., n.d.) c. David Lax and James Sebenus. "Creating and claiming value: the process of negot iat ion." Chapter six in The Manager as Negotiator, (forthcoming) Session 4. 25 FEB 86 a. Tom Schel l ing. "An essay on bargaining" Pp. 43-60 in The Lawyer as  Negotiator. (West, 1976) b. Roger Fisher "Negotiating power" American Behavioral Sc ient is t . 27 (1983): 149-166.. ; Session 5. 4 MAR 86 a. Jacob Berkowitz.. Social Conf l ic t and Third Part ies: Strategies of  Conf l ic t Resolution. (Westview, 1984) Pp. 2-142. 126 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING URP 5429(1) Spring 1986 Environmental Dispute Resolution Bruce S t i f t e l T 7:00-9:45pm 110RBB General Descript ion: Complex regulatory disputes f requent ly slow public sector decision making and cr ipp le major pr ivate sector investments. Parties to disputes such as locat ion of "locally-unwanted land-uses" (LULUs), set t ing of a i r and water qua l i t y standards, and evaluation of urban and t ransportat ion plans f requent ly f a i l to cooperate to achieve the best possible outcomes. This course examines why th is is so and t r i es to develop the s k i l l s necessary f o r indiv iduals to improve the outcomes in contentious decision making. We w i l l examine the nature of complex regulatory disputes including several in-depth case studies. These disputes w i l l be contrasted against theories of b i - l a t e r i a l and m u l t i - l a t e r a l c o n f l i c t and against strategies for succeeding at games of c o n f l i c t . We w i l l develop considerable hands-on experience at both improving jo in t -ga ins and obtaining superior s t rategic outcomes in gaming s i tua t ions . We w i l l apply th is experience to consideration of successful and unsuccessful negotiat ion and mediation of f a c i l i t y s i t i n g , rulemaking, plan making, and enforcement. Prerequisi tes: Graduate standing in Urban and Regional Planning, Public Administrat ion, Social Work, Law, or Business; er permission of i ns t ruc to r . Procedure: Classes w i l l combine lectures, a guest speaker, case study presentations, and extensive gaming simulat ions. Informed par t i c ipa t ion in discussions is essential so your f i r s t respons ib i l i t y w i l l be to do a l l the reading on time. Requirements, discussed fur ther below, include a case study presentat ion, par t i c ipa t ion in the various gaming simulat ions, a journal discussing your experiences, and a paper analyzing a current environmental dispute. Materials: There are three required texts available fo r purchase at B i l l ' s Bookstore (107 S. Copeland S t . ) : Roger Fisher and W. Ury. Getting to Yes. (Penguin, 1983 or Houghton-M i f f l i n , 1981). Howard Ra i f fa . The Art and Science of Negotiation (Harvard Universi ty Press, 1982). Lawrence Susskind, L. Bacow, and M. Wheeler. Resolving Environmental  Regulatory Disputes. (Schenkman, 1983). In addition a series of short required readings w i l l be avai lable fo r purchase at Kinko's Copies (650 W. Tennessee S t . ) . 127 2 In class I w i l l hand out materials to be used in the simulations. Reimbursement for these copyrighted materials should be made no later than the second class date (14 JAN) in the amount of $16.00 by check or money order payable to Department of Urban and Regional Planning. No cash, please. Course Calendar: 7 JAN Why Negotiate Environmental Disputes? Course Organization. 14 JAN GAMING: Rad Waste An Overview of Methods for Al ternat ive Dispute Resolution. 21 JAN CASE: The Brown Company CASE: 8rayton Point Coal Conversion Theories of Conf l ict I 28 JAN CASE: Col s t r i p Power Plant Theories of Conf l ic t I I 4 FEB Principled Negotiation GAMING: Appleton v. Baker 11 FEB GAMING: Rushing River Cleanup The Psychology of Negotiation 18 FEB GUEST SPEAKER: -Jim Ramsey, Ramsey Tyndall & Assoc., Jacksonvil le GAMING: EPA v. Riverside 25 FEB GAMING: MAPO - Aministrat ive Negotation Sources of Power in Negotiations 4 MAR GAMING: HARBACO 11 MAR CASE: Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act CASE: Holston River Negotiating Rules and Resolving Sc ien t i f i c Disputes 18 MAR SPRING BREAK - No Class 25 MAR GAMING: Oioxin Si t ing of Regionally-desirable, Locally-obnoxious F a c i l i t i e s 1 APR CASE: Footh i l ls Treatment Works CASE: Kissimmee River Resource Planning and Management Comm. Helpers — Planning Analyses as Mediation Aids 8 APR GAMING: Seaport Representation at the Table and Commitment to Agreements 15 APR CASE: Jackson, WY Ins t i t u t i ona l i za t i on of Al ternat ive Dispute Resolution 128 3 Requirements: 1. Par t ic ipate vigorously in class discussions and in gaming simulat ions. 2. Prepare and del iver in-class a synopsis of a case study from the perspective of one of the partisans (various dates). 3. Keep a journal in which you record comments on required readings and on the gaming simulat ions. The journal should be structured as a b r i e f i n g document for 'your planning d i r e c t o r ' . That i s , imagine that you are on assignment by your agency to complete th is course with the expectation of sharing what you have learned with others in the agency. But f i r s t the agency d i rector must review the mater ia l . Provide her with a d igest ib le yet r e a l i s t i c synopsis and c r i t i que of the course mater ia ls . (Due 11 APR) 4. Write a paper in which you analyze a current environmental dispute. Detai ls on the assignment w i l l be d is t r ibu ted l a t e r . (Due 22 APR) * A note on class p a r t i c i p a t i o n : This course depends strongly on a high degree of in teract ion among the par t i c ipan ts . Accordingly, nothing less than f u l l attendance is expected of" everyone. Persons with more than two absences w i l l be res t r i c ted to a class par t i c ipa t ion par t ia l grade below B. Grading: Class and Simulation P a r t i c i a t i o n * Case Study Presentation Journal Paper 25% 15% 30% 30% TOlJS 129 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY URPS429(1) Bruce S t i f t e l Environmental Dispute Resolution Spring 1986 READING LIST I * indicates i n readings packet 14JAN. C o n f l i c t i n the Public Sector/Overview of Methods. *a. Thomas Schelling. "An essay on bargaining." Pp.43-60 in The Lawyer As  Negotiator. (West, 1976). b. Rai f f a . P p . 7 - 3 2 . *c. Lawrence Susskind and Denise Madigan. "New approaches to resolving disputes in the public sector." (mms., n.d.) *d. Peter B. Clark and Francis H. Cummings J r . "Selecting an environmental c o n f l i c t management strategy." Pp.10-33 in Environmental C o n f l i c t  Management, edited by P h i l i p A. Marcus and Wendy M. Emrich. (University of V i r g i n i a , Institute for Environmental Negotiation, 1981). *e. Robert R. Stein. "The use of mediation and other techniques for the settlement of environmental and natural resource disputes." UNEP Industry and Linvi roiimcnt. 7 (1984 ): 45-47. 21JAN. Brown Case/Brayton Point Case/Theories of C o n f l i c t I. a. Susskind, Bacow and Wheeler. Pp.5-29 ; 122- 155. b. Raiffa. Pp.35-130. c. Fisher and Ury. Pp. 5-14. *d. David Lax and James Sebenus. "Creating and claiming value: The process of negotiation." Chapter six in The Manager As Negotiator, (forthcoming). *e. Dean G. P r u i t t . "Achieving integrative agreements." Pp.35-50 in Negotiating In Organizations. (Sage, L9&5). j 130 28JAN. Prospects for Mediation/Colstrip Case/Theories of Conflict II. *a. Lawrence Susskind and Connie Ozawa. "Mediated negotiation in the public sector: mediator accountability and the public interest problem." American Behavioral Scientist. 27(1985) :255-279. b. Susskind, Bacow and Wheeler. Pp.56-85. c. Raiffa. Pp.151-250. *d. Michael O'Hare, Lawrence Bacow and Debra Sanderson. "Principles of the public choice process." Pp.26-56 in Facility Siting and Public Opposition. (Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1985). 4FEB. Principled Negotiation. a. Fisher and Ury. Pp. 17-154. *b. James J . White. "The pros and cons on 'Getting To Yes 1." Journal of Legal  Education. Pp. 115-124. *c. William McCarthy. "The role of power and principle in 'Getting To Yes'." Negotiation Journal. 1(1985) :59-6b. *d. Roger Fisher. "Beyond Yes." Negotiation Journal. 1 (1985):67-70. 131 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING URP 5429 (1) Environmental Dispute Resolution Bruce Stiftel Spring 1986 READING LIST II * 3 material in readings packet. 11 FEB *a. Max Bazerman "A critical look at the rationality assumption." American  8ehavioral Scientist. 27 (1983): 211-228. *b. Allan I. Teger. Too Much Invested To Quit. (Pergamon, 1980) Pp. 1-25. *c. Jeffrey Z. Rubin, "Caught by choice: the psychological snares we set ourselves." The Sciences. 22 (1982): 18-21. 18 FEB 86 a. Raiffa Pp. 257-274. *b. I. William Zartman and M.8. Berman. The Practical Negotiator. (Yale, 1982). Pp. 87-202. 25 FEB *a. Roger Fisher. "Negotiating power." American Behavioral Scientist. 27 (1983): 149-166. : *b. Samuel B. Bachrach and E.J. Lawler. Bargaining: Power. Tactics, and  Outcomes. (Jossey-Bass, 1981) Pp. 41-79. " i . Jacob Berkowitz. Social Conflict and Third Parties: Strategies of  Conflict Resolution. (Westview, 1984) Pp. 2-142. 132 DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY URP 5^29. SPRING 1986. FINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT The f i n a l paper has previously been described as an analysis of a current environmental dispute. I would l i k e to broaden the range of possible t o p i c s / e f f o r t s into three categories: 1. A case study of a current environmental dispute. 2. A project in which you contribute to the resolution.of a public sector dispute. 3. A term paper on an issue suggested by the course material but not included in 1 or 2 above. The paper is due on 22 A p r i l . I encourage you to submit i t before this date. There is no formal length requirement. Chock with me to c l e a r your topic; then write a paper of length suitable to dealing with the topic In a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner. CFor those who i n s i s t that they must have guidelines l e t me say that I've yet to see a five page-.'term paper I thought was s a t i s f a c t o r y , and I've seldom., seen a forty page one that I thought was worth the e f f o r t . ) A l i t t l e more on the three categories of papers: CASE STUDY: If you do a case study choose a case that is ongoing or recent and a c c e s s i b l e , preferable one that o f f e r s local s t a f f who w i l l be w i l l i n g to discuss i t . After researching what written material is a v a i l a b l e and t a l k i n g to s t a f f and/or interest representatives, attempt to share the case with us in somewhat the same manner as the authors of the cases in the Susskind, Bacow and Wheeler case book have. Outline the dimensions of the c o n f l i c t , the issues In dispute, positions and i n t e r e s t s , e t c . Then describe the process from pre-negotiation, to negotiation, to post-negotiation, or as far as the timing of the case w i l l permit. F i n a l l y , argue whether the case supports or argues against the theories of dispute resolution we have examined this semester. PROJECT: Perhaps you have access to a current dispute that permits you to a c t i v e l y become involved in i t s resolution e i t h e r as an intervenor or as an advisor to s t a f f . Go to i t l Help to resolve the dispute in whatever manner your professional judgment and c l i e n t sentiment permit. Then describe this experience both int.terms of the actual events, and by remarking on how those events i l l u s t r a t e or challenge dispute resolution theory. TERM PAPER: You may e l e c t to do a more c l a s s i c term paper on an issue from the readings or class discussions, or on an issue that you otherwise i d e n t i f y as important to environmental dispute resolution. This should be handled on a "contract" basis between you and 1. That i s , c l e a r the topic with me and le t ' s talk about what the paper should include. APPENDIX 4 PRACTITIONER'S WORKSHOP 134 The Banff Centre School of Management i Environmental Conflict Resolution March 1 6 - 2 1 , 1986 New Approaches to the Settlement of Resource Disputes March 18 - 2 1 , 1986 The Seminar In t h e e i g h t i e s c o n f l i c t is c o m m o n p l a c e in ' r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t a n d d e v e l o p m e n t d e c i s i o n s . I t is a r e s u l t o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in i n t e r e s t s a n d v a l u e s t h a t e x i s t in s o c i e t y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e u s e o f l a n d , w a t e r a n d e n e r g y . A s t h e d e m a n d s o n all o f t h e s e r e s o u r c e s m u l t i p l y , a n d c a n be c o m p e t i n g , t h e i r m a n a g e m e n t b e c o m e s b o t h m o r e c o m p l e x a n d m o r e c o n t r o v e r s i a l . L a r g e s c a l e d e v e l o p m e n t p r o j e c t s , in p a r t i c u l a r , i n v o l v e m a k i n g d i f f i c u l t e n v i r o n m e n t a l , s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c t r a d e - o f f s . A s a r e s u l t , c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h t h e p u b l i c h a s b e c o m e a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t . T h i s is m o s t v i s i b l e in t h e f o r m a l p r o c e s s e s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d b y t h e f e d e r a l a n d p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t s . W h i l e h e a r i n g a c t i v i t i e s w i l l c o n t i n u e t o be i m p o r t a n t , t h e e m p h a s i s is re-f o c u s i n g t o s m a l l e r s c a l e , l o w e r c o s t , less a d v e r s e r i a l a n d p r o t r a c t e d m e t h o d s o f c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . Who Should Apply T h e s e m i n a r is d i r e c t e d a t s e n i o r m a n a g e r s a n d d e c i s i o n m a k e r s w h o are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e a l i n g w i t h r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n i s s u e s , o r are i n v o l v e d in p u b l i c a f f a i r s o f c o m m u n i t y d e v e l o p m e n t . I n t e r e s t g r o u p s w h o w a n t a f i r m u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n in r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t w i l l a l so f i n d t h e sk i l l s w o r k s h o p a n d t h e p o l i c y s e m i n a r w o r t h w h i l e . Reaching Agreement March 1 6 - 1 8 , 1986 The Workshop T h e p o l i c y s e m i n a r w i l l be p r e c e d e d b y a w o r k s h o p o n t h e p r i n c i p l e s a n d p r a c t i c e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l n e g o t i a t i o n , b a s e d in p a r t o n s i m u l a t i o n e x e r c i s e s d e v e l o p e d b y t h e H a r v a r d N e g o t i a t i o n P r o j e c t . I t is a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s a n d p a r t i c i p a n t s f r o m t h i s w o r k s h o p w i l l be u t i l i z e d in t h e p o l i c y s e m i n a r . Workshop Objectives T h i s w o r k s h o p o f f e r s an i n t e n s i v e l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e : a . t o p r o v i d e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h a s o u n d g r a s p o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f m a n a g i n g c o n f l i c t s g e n e r a t e d b y r e s o u r c e u s e a n d d e v e l o p m e n t ; b. t o f a m i l i a r i z e p a r t i c i p a n t s w i t h p r a c t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s a n d p r o c e d u r e s f o r r e s o l v i n g or m i t i g a t i n g c o n f l i c t . Seminar Objectives T h i s s e m i n a r w i l l f o c u s o n n e w a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e s e t t l e m e n t o f d i s p u t e s b a s e d o n n e g o t i a t i o n a n d b a r g a i n i n g , i n c l u d i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l m e d i a t i o n . A c e n t r a l o b j e c t i v e o f t h e s e m i n a r w i l l be t o e s t a b l i s h t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t e x i s t f o r d e v e l o p i n g a n d f o s t e r i n g m e d i a t i o n / n e g o t i a t i o n b o t h w i t h i n e x i s t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s a n d as s u p p l e m e n t s t o t h e m a n d , a. t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a n d h o w m o r e i n t e n s i v e n e g o t i a t i o n b a s e d a p p r o a c h e s c a n be e m p l o y e d t o s e t t l e r e s o u r c e a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l d i s p u t e s in C a n a d a ; a n d b. t o d e t e r m i n e w h a t m a y w o r k b e s t u n d e r w h i c h k i n d s o f t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s . 135 Reaching Agreement Skills and Techniques for Environmental Negotiation Sunday, M a r c h 16 Monday, M a r c h 17 Tuesday, M a r c h 18 Registration W e l c o me and W o r k s h o p Orientation — Barry Sadler, C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e , The Banff Centre Basic Principles of Environmental Negotiation: Objectives A pproaches, Preconditions for S u c c e s s , C o n d u c t of the Process, A c h i e v i n g C l o s u r e — Gail Bingham, Senior A s s o c i a t e , The Co n s e r v a t i o n Foundation C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Resource and Environmental Disputes in Canada. Review and C a s e A n a l y s i s . — Barry Sadler Dispute A s s e s s m e n t : Screening and Simulation — Barry Sadler and Gail Bingham G e t t i n g Started and Establishing the Ground Rules — Gail Bingham Negotiation Simulation Exercise: Scorable Game Developed by the Harvard Program on Negotiation — Denise Madigan, Harvard Program on Negotiation, Harvard University Implementation of Agreements — Gaii Bingham and Denise Madigan C o n c l u s i o n s and W o r k s h o p Evaluation — Barry Sadler Reception and Integration w i t h Po l i c y Seminar 13P Environmental Conflict Resolution New A p p r o a c h e s to the Management and Settlement of Resource Based Disputes Tuesday, M a r c h 18 Registration and Reception Integration w i t h S k i l l s W o r k s h o p Wednesday, M a r c h 19 Introduction: S e t t i n g the Stage — Barry Sadler. C o n s u l t i n g A s s o c i a t e , The Banff Centre Theory and Practice of Negotiation — Howard Raiffa, Harvard Business S c h o o l Environmental Dispute Settlement in the United States: A Decade of Experience — Gail Bingham, Senior A s s o c i a t e , The C o n s e r v a t i o n Foundation Trends and Developments in Canada: Panel D i s c u s s i o n — Bill Rich, Vice-President, A l c a n Canada — Michel Picher. A d j u d i c a t i o n S e r v i c e s Ltd. — Bob Deiury, Claims Coordinator, Inuvialuit Regional C o r p o r a t i o n — Vern Millard, Energy Resources C o n s e r v a t i o n Board (ERCB) — Moderator: Audrey Armour, C o n f l i c t Management Resources York Univ e r s i t y Future Directions: Opportunities and Co n s t r a i n t s — Andy Thompson. Director, W e s t w a t e r Research Centre — Ian Smyth, Executive Director, Canadian Petroleum A s s o c i a t i o n (CPA) — Barry Stewart. Land Claims Negotiator, Y u k o n Government — Nancy MacPherson, Y u k o n Con s e r v a t i o n S o c i e t y — Moderator: Tony Dorcey, W e s t w a t e r Research Centre Thursday, M a r c h 2 0 W o r k s h o p Sessions: Issues and Problems Goals and Objectives Co n s t r a i n t s Friday, M a r c h 21 Development of A c t i o n Plan (Possible l i s t of Candidate Projects) 138 APPENDIX 5 NIDR PROGRAM ON CONFLICT RESOLMTfniu :" ' 139 A S o u r c e B o o k o n Dispute Resolution In Planning School Curricula Compiled by Tom Dinell and John Goody Program on Conflict Resolution University of Hawaii a* Manoa for the National Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 140 N A T I O N A L I N S T I T U T E F O R D I S P U T E R E S O L U T I O N Program on Professional Education: Grants Announcement and Progress Report J A N U A R Y 1986 141 About the Institute The purpose of the National Institute for Dispute Resolu-tion is to enhance the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the processes through which Americans resolve disputes. Where conflicts serve no social purpose, the Institute seeks out and promotes systematic measures to eliminate the causes of needless controversy. Where disputes do arise, the organization fosters the development, validation, and public acceptance of innovative techniques to resolve them. While respecting each disputant's right of ultimate recourse to formal litigation, the Institute strives to expand the availability and improve the use of alternative procedures with proven capacity to provide more timely, responsive and affordable justice in significant numbers of cases. The fundamental role of the Institute is to stimulate and assist informed, carefully-planned action. Its principal bus-iness is to facilitate production of promising ideas drawn from practitioners and from the growing research com-munity, and to translate them into actual improvements in the operation of dispute resolution systems. To that end. the Institute has supported a wide range of activities including six statewide offices of mediation for the resolu-tion of public policy disputes, a nationwide effort to increase the use of court ordered arbitration, grants to pri-vate mediation services working in collaboration with pub-lic agencies and an initiative in legal education. The Insti-tute maintains an active publication program anchored by its periodic publication. FORUM. Just as positive change is the primary goal of the Insti-tute, the accomplishment of such change is the proper measure of its effectiveness. All Institute programs and projects, both existing and proposed, are evaluated accord-ing to their likely contributions to this ultimate objective. Taken as a whoie. the work program of the Institute is an agenda for advancing the frontiers of accepted dispute resolution practice, and it is against this demanding stand-ard that the organization assesses the degree to which its mission has been fulfilled. The National Institute for Dispute Resolution is a pri-vate, nonprofit, grant making and technical organization. B o a r d o f D i r e c t o r s Robben W. Fleming. Chair Former President of the University of Michigan and of the Cor-poration for Public Broadcasting Madeleine Crohn. President National Institute for Dispute Resolution Thomas Donahue Secretary/Treasurer of the AFL-CIO Thomas Ehriich Provost and Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Joel L. Fleishman Vice-chancellor and Professor of Law and Public Policy Studies. Duke University Rhoda H. Karpatkin. Secretary I Treasurer Executive Director of Consumers Union of United States. Inc. Wade H. McCree Jr. Professor. University of Michigan Law School Donald F. McHenry Professor of Diplomacy and International Affairs. Georgetown University Harold R. Newman Chairman. New York State Public Employment Relations Board Cruz Reynoso Associate Justice. California Supreme Court Margaret K. Rosenheim Helen Ross Professor. School of Social Service Administration. University of Chicago Ernst John Watts Former Dean of the National Judicial College. University of Nevada F o u n d i n g O r g a n i z a t i o n s The founding organizations and original funders of the National Institute for Dispute Resolution are the Ford Foundation, the William A. and Flora Hewlett Founda-tion, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Founda-tion, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, and the Prudential Fundation. The Exxon Education Foundation. General Motors Corporation. Aetna Life and Casualty Foundation. Ford Motor Company, and Chrysler Corporation also provide funds for the Institute's work. 142 Program o n Professional Education: G r a n t s A n n o u n c e m e n t a n d P r o g r e s s R e p o r t Overview In April. 1985 NIDR announced the establishment of a Program on Professional Education, to support the teach-ing and study of dispute resolution in graduate schools of business, planning and public affairs, public administration and public policy. NIDR seeks to encourage faculty in these programs to develop dispute resolution as an impor-tant element in the curriculum. Program activities have included solicitations for proposals to develop course ma-terials, projects to include dispute resolution materials in commercial textbooks and a competitive, juried research fellowship program for doctoral and post-doctoral work on dispute resolution. In 1985 NIDR awarded twelve 55.000 matching grants to develop course materials: eight S5.000 doctoral research fellowships: and four commercial textbook grants. In addi-tion. NIDR commissioned and published two volumes of teaching materials titled. TTie Manager as Negotiator and Dispute Resoiver, which have been adopted in over 200 business school courses in the current academic year. A NIDR supported volume of course syllabi and bibliog-raphy titled. Bargaining and Dispute Resolution Curricula: A Sourcebook, was published by the Eno River Press. The Institute is r:ow seeking proposals for a third round of the S5.000 course materials matching grants and the research fellowship awards. The application deadline for both sets of grants is the close of business on March 14, 1986. The Institute also is seeking proposals for textbook development. Textbook proposals may be sent any time before June 15. 1986. Grants Announcement TEACHING MATERIALS Course Materials NIDR is seeking proposals from faculty to develop course materials for use in traditional courses in the curriculum. We encourage proposals from individual faculty and faculty groups who have written and taught about bargaining and conflict management resolution. Interested faculty should submit a short letter describing the work proposed with an outline of the timetable, workplan and suggestions for the dissemination of the work. Applications must include the resumes of those involved and a letter confirming the availability of matching funds. The deadline for these proposals is the close of business on March 14, 1986. Proposals may come directly from faculty or through their respective schools and awards will be announced in April. 1986. Textbook Development The Institute is interested in receiving proposals from commercial coursebook authors to develop new dispute resolution materials for inclusion in revised texts or in supplements to existing texts. Support in the range of $5,000 is available for such proposals. The Institute is especially interested in incorporating materials into texts for courses that have previously featured scant attention to dispute resolution issues. NIDR will also consider some limited support for the development of new commercial teaching texts on dispute resolution. Interested authors should submit a short letter describing their text and its current or potential use in the curriculum, and how they 3« N I D R E d u c a t i o n G r a n t s 143 plan to develop the supplementary dispute resolution mate-rials. Proposals lor text development may be submitted anytime before June 15. 1986. RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP AWARDS The Institute is seeking research proposals from doctoral and post-doctoral students that focus on dispute resolution and its applications to the problems of business and government organizations. The deadline for applications is the close of business on March 14, 1986. The non-renew-able stipends of 55.000 each must be matched on a one-to-one basis by the program or university at which the appli-cant is studying. In some instances, the Institute may consider matching funds provided through other fellow-ship programs. Interested candidates should submit a resume, letters of recommendation from at least two faculty familiar with the proposed or ongoing research, a letter confirming the matching funds and a description of no more than five pages outlining the research plan, its relation to existing research and potential applications of the research find-ings. The complete application must be received by N I D R by the close of business on March 14, 1986. Applications will be reviewed by Institute staff and an academic advi-sory review panel. Final decisions will be announced in May. 1986. Progress Report GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Teaching Materials In 1985 the Institute awarded six 55.000 matching grants for the development of course materials. Three of these grants were for the development of module materials for existing courses, one was to develop materials for a full term course on managing conflict and two represented col-laborative efforts to develop course materials for use in several courses in the business curriculum. These grants are summarized below: • Professor Max Bazerman. J . L . Kellogg School of Manage-ment at Northwestern University, is developing a three hour module on judgmental processes and negotiation to include exer-cise materials, lecture notes, recommended readings, and teaching instructions. • Professor George J . Siedel. Graduate School of Business at the University of Michigan, is developing a dispute resolution legal processes module for use in business law courses. The 3-5 hour module will include treatment of processes of dispute man-agement, dispute resolution and dispute prevention, demonstrat-ing how decision analysis can be used to implement all three. • Professors Marv Rowe and Thomas Kochan. MIT Sloan School of Management, are preparing case materials for a course titled. "Managing Conflict." to be taught at the Sloan School in the Spring of 1986. • Professors Margaret Neale and Gregory Northcraft. of the College of Business at the University of Arizona, are developing simulations, case studies and instructors' notes for a negotiation and dispute resolution course to fit into the growing specializa-tion in entrepreneurship in American business schools. The focus of the course will be on the development and selling of an idea to a venture capitalist, and the disputes faced by small, closely held companies. • Professors Thomas Pierce and Bob Heim. Department of Management. Oklahoma State University are surveying business faculty at six universities (Arkansas. Oklahoma. Tulsa. Wichita State. North Texas State University and Oklahoma State) and will develop dispute resolution material for adoption at these bus-iness schools based on the survey results. • The Gonzaga Center for Conflict Management and Reconcili-ation is overseeing the development of conflict management modules for courses in the school of business. Courses targeted include organizational behavior, organizational development and business in society. Textbook Development N I D R has provided support for the development of two textbooks for use in business schools. Professors David Lax and James Sebenius are writ ing a teaching text to accompany their forthcoming treatise. The Manager as Negotiator. Professor Will iam Collison. California State University. Chico, is developing a text for use in courses on negotiation and conflict management in the business school curriculum. Module Development N I D R has commissioned and published two volumes of module teaching materials for use in several basic courses within the management curriculum. The first volume. The Manager as Negotiator and Dispute Resoher was deve-loped by Professors Jeanne Brett. J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Northwestern University. Leonard Greenhalgh, Amos Tuck School of Business Administra-tion. Dartmouth College. Deborah Kolb. Graduate School of Management. Simmons College. Roy Lewicki. College of Administrative Sciences. The Ohio State University, and Blair Sheppard. Fuqua School of Management. Duke University. The materials have been designed for easy use by faculty who may not have taught bargaining or dispute resolution concepts in such courses as organizational be-havior, organizational design, human resource manage-ment, and managerial negotiations. The volume features five simulations, one case study and extensive teaching guides for each, along with suggested readings. The Second volume. The Manager as Negotiator and Dispute Resoher: Curriculum Materials in Dispute Reso-lution for Decision Analysis and Economics was developed by Professors David Lax. Harvard Business School. Wil-liam Samuelson. Boston University School of Manage-ment. James Sebenius. John F. Kennedy School of Gov-ernment. Harvard University and Robert Weber. J .L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management. Northwestern 4« N I D R E d u c a t i o n G r a n t s 144 University, with assistance from Thomas Weeks. John F. Kennedy School of Government. Harvard University. The materials are designed for easy integration into standard courses covering managerial economics, microeconomics, decision analysts and game theory, and include exercises, role plays, teaching notes and an overview of recent game theoretic research on bargaining and dispute resolution. Both volumes are available from NIDR for S15.00 each. RESEARCH FELLOWSHIPS NIDR has awarded five fellowships in the first round to business doctoral students. Second round proposals are currently under review. The first round work is summar-ized below: • John W. Minton. Fuqua School of Business. Duke Univer-sity, is conducting research on the management and resolution of disputes in organizational settings. The expected benefits of the research include a better understanding and improvement of the processes of dispute generation and conflict management in organizations. The research has theoretical applications in its connections with prior research on fairness in organizational management. • Cynthia S. Fobian. The College of Business Administration. The University of Iowa, is focusing her research on a phenom-enon known as "Adams Paradox." in which those in positions of dealing with the outside world often develop cooperative methods of negotiating with those outsiders that may result in a loss of trust within the organization for which they work. • Debra L. Shapiro. J.L. Kellogg Graduate School of Man-agement, Northwestern University, is conducting research on the effect of negotiator bluffing on subsequent interpersonal evalua-tions and behavior. • Elaine K. Yakura. Sloan School of Management, Massachu-setts Institute of Technology, is researching the negotiated rela-tionships between consulting firms and clients. The larger frame-work for the research lies in the current shift from a manu-facturing-based to a service-based economy, and the lack of research analyzing the shift in negotiating processes which is tak-ing place. GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF PLANNING Teaching Materials The Institute awarded three $5,000 grants to planning faculty which are summarized below: • Professor David Godschalk. Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, is developing and will publish a minicomputer-based longitudinal negotiation teaching exercise for use in graduate planning courses concerned with pub-lic/ private development projects. • Professors Richard Collins and Bruce Dotson. Department of Urban and Environmental Planning. The School of Architecture, University of Virginia, are writing a course reader and notebook for use in a planning course titled "Negotiating Public Policy Issues." The materials will include readings, case studies and sim-ulations, and will focus on negotiation in land-use planning and development. The materials will be useful in environmental plan-ning, legal aspects of planning, urban design and planning theory courses. • Professor Emil Malma. Department of City and Regional Planning. University of North Carolina, is developing a scored negotiation exercise and teaching case in a growth/ no growth conflict based on an actual development dispute. Textbook Development NIDR has supported the inclusion of a chapter on dispute resolution in the forthcoming second edition of. Introduc-tion to Urban Planning, edited by Professors Anthony Catanese. Georgia Institute of Technology and J.C. Synder. University of Michigan. The text, published by McGraw-Hill, is used in graduate introduction to planning courses. Module Development In 1986 NIDR will sponsor the development of a teaching materials module volume focusing on several basic courses in the planning curriculum. Research Fellowships NIDR awarded two fellowships in the first round to plan-ning doctoral students. Second round proposals are cur-rently under review. The first found work is summarized beiow: • Connie Ozawa. School of Urban Studies and Planning. Mas-sachusetts Institute of Technology, is conducting research on the mediation of science-intensive disputes. • Thomas A. Taylor. College of Architecture and Urban Stud-ies. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, is re-searching the use of creativity in dispute resolution processes used to resolve urban development conflicts. GRADUATE SCHOOLS OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY Course Materials The Institute awarded three $5,000 grants for the devel-opment of materials in graduate programs in public ad-ministration and public policy. These are summarized beiow: • Professor Barbara Cohn. W. Averell Harriman College for Policy Analysis and Public Management. State University of New York-Stoney Brook, is developing dispute resolution mate-rials for use in a public administration course titled. "Improving Government Productivity." The materials developed will also be suitable for introductory courses on public management. The materials will focus on inter-governmental agency conflict arising from efforts to improve productivity and on innovative dispute resolution efforts to deal with these conflicts. • Professor Robert Behn. Institute of Policy Sciences and Pub-lic Affairs. Duke University, is preparing two teaching cases illus-trating conflict management involving governors. These cases will be designed for use in a growing number of public management courses being offered in public policy schools, and as modules in courses dealing with disupte resolution and crisis management. • Professor Gerald Popps. Department of Public Administra-tion. West Virginia University, is developing dispute resolution teaching materials for use as a component in a newly developing core course in the public administration curriculum on problem solving and decision making. Textbook Development The Institute has supported the development of dispute resolution materials for inclusion in the 3rd edition of Pro-s' N I D R E d u c a t i o n Gran ts 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0097847/manifest

Comment

Related Items