978-0073530369 Challenges Of Teaching Negotiation

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-1

CHALLENGES OF TEACHING NEGOTIATION

ROY J. LEWICKI

An earlier version of this article originally appeared in Negotiation Journal. The

article explains some of the ways that teaching negotiation is different from other

experiential-based courses, uses a well known model of experiential learning to

explain the various vehicles for learning in the course, discusses some general

problems in structuring a negotiation course, and describes some of the unique

challenges that are created for instructors in these courses. For those who do

not have extensive teaching experience in this area, the article creates an

appropriate groundwork for understanding the course specifics that we describe

on this website. References and language have been updated as appropriate.

Courses in negotiation are a mature academic industry. In the mid-1970s, when

I first taught a negotiation course to students in a graduate school of business, there

were perhaps two or three other comparable courses in the United States. Reading and

case materials at that time were drawn largely from labor relations, social psychology,

and international diplomacy. Simulation materials were adapted from game theory,

collective bargaining and psychological experiments. Only one or two practitioner-

oriented trade books were available in the marketplace.

Today, negotiation courses are staples of the curriculum in business schools, law

schools, public policy schools, schools of international relations, and undergraduate

curricula. Case studies and simulations are regularly developed to analyze and enact

negotiation in each of these environments and contexts. Research emphasis has largely

moved from the development of new theoretical bases to applications and the analysis

of negotiations in situational context. Practitioner oriented books on negotiation abound,

and comprehensive textbooks are beginning to appear. Finally, seminars for executives

and practitioners are available from many training organizations and consulting firms.

My purpose in this article is to outline some of the central problems, issues and

dilemmas of teaching negotiation. While some of these problems are not unique to

teaching negotiation skills (and related courses in power and conflict management—see

the bibliography and ‘Additional Resources’ section of this website), others specifically

arise because of the nature of the subject matter and the pedagogical style necessary to

create a rich and challenging learning environment.

A Model for Teaching Negotiation Skills

Most negotiation courses as a combination of theory and research, descriptive

and prescriptive models, and experiential activities such as role playing and cases.

There are several key assumptions about the teaching and learning of negotiation that,

though they may seem obvious, should be stated explicitly.

Adapted from an article that first appeared in Negotiation Journal, January 1986, pp. 15-27.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-2

First, negotiation is a comprehensible social process. Negotiation is not a

mystical process in a black box; it can be analyzed, understood, and modeled. Second,

negotiation is a learnable and teachable skill. Negotiators are made, not born, and skills

can be improved and relearned throughout life. Finally, change and improvement in

negotiating behavior require a combination of intellectual training and behavioral skill

development. Thus, the most effective approaches to teaching negotiation will integrate

intellectual analysis and skill development in a complete pedagogical package.

To demonstrate how skill development and theory may be integrated together in

teaching negotiation, I will employ a simple, broad-based model of experiential learning

(Figure 1). This model, derived from the work of Kolb, Rubin and McIntyre (1983),

proposes that learning occurs in four interrelated steps (beginning at the bottom of the

circle and moving clockwise):

• The development (or external introduction) of Abstract Concepts, theory and

generalizations, which leads to

• Predictions, hypotheses, or Testing of the Implications of these Concepts,

which leads to

Concrete

experiences

Testing

implications

of concepts

Formation of

abstract concepts

and

generalizations

Observations

and

reflections

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-3

• Actual behavior and Concrete Experiences, which leads to

• Observations and Reflections on that behavior, which leads back to further

concepts and generalizations (theory).

Students can begin anywhere in this cycle to assess their behavior or to change

it. For instance, athletes who want to improve their tennis swing might begin this

process by becoming more aware of their current swing or watching it on video (actual

behavior and reflection). This then leads to an effort to define why the swing is poor

(reflection and principles), followed by an intention to change the wrist position while

swinging (principles and intentions), and then a change in the way the racket is swung

(behavior). Similarly watching a video of a professional tennis player or reading a book

about tennis would be an infusion of principles, leading to intentions to behave

differently; actually taking a lesson would be an introduction of principles and some

“practice” (new behavior, reflection, intention to behave differently, and more new

behavior).

This model is useful in several ways. First, it applies to many different situations

where skills are learned and developed, and allows us to break down the skill

development process into its component parts. Second, since the learning model has

several component parts, it is most useful to structure the learning process to bolster

each of the elements. Finally, there are several competing theories as to the optimal

place to “enter” this learning circle. I will note some of these competing theories in the

discussion that follows.

Structuring The Course

While it is possible that some doctoral-level instructors may wish to teach only

theory and research, instructors at other levels generally want to structure a course that

is designed to improve the student’s negotiating behavior. In particular, courses

designed for executives or MBA students should offer a blend of theory and skill

practice, since these students are primarily interested in improving their negotiating

behavior. Courses structured in this way are more likely to help the student recognize

the relation between theoretical principles and actual behavior, thereby preparing the

student to negotiate more effectively. Finally, experiential components add a dimension

that makes the course more interesting, enjoyable, exciting, and relevant to both student

and instructor.

There are many ways to structure a negotiation course — in terms of the topics

covered, intellectual and experiential materials used, etc.

. Since I am not proposing

that there is one definitive way to teach this topic, the following ideas are intended as

suggestions only. However, an ideal course structure should emphasize each of the

four stages in the experiential model, and I shall make specific recommendations

regarding course design elements that may be used for each stage.

For a sample of negotiation course outlines from leading instructors, see outlines included on this website

or contact instructors at the web lists listed in the Additional Resource Materials section of this website.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-4

Theory and Concepts – Most academic courses emphasize theory and scholarly

research. Negotiation is no exception. There is a large volume of material available on

the negotiation process, written from many different perspectives (e.g., psychology,

economics, communications, sociology, law, and political science). Instructors seem to

prefer all varieties of textbooks, research books and articles, or mass-market

publications written largely for practitioners. The following topics are addressed in most

negotiation courses through lectures or assigned readings:

1. The dynamics of interpersonal and inter-group conflict,

2. An overview of the negotiation process;

3. The economic structure of negotiation, and some exposure to game–

theoretic models;

4. The basics of competitive, distributive, win-lose negotiation;

5. The basics of collaborative, integrative, win-win negotiation;

6. Negotiator ethics;

7. The use of power, and negotiating in unequal power relations;

8. Communication and perception dynamics;

9. Multiparty negotiations, including negotiating coalitions, and negotiations

within groups and teams

10. The nature of negotiations across national cultures;

11. Individual differences in personality and gender as they affect

negotiations;

12. Approaches for resolving unproductive negotiations, including the use of

third parties.

Intentions/Predictions – Intentions and predictions are ways that the negotiator

translates theory and concepts into practice. Whether it is a desire to try a different

strategy in negotiation, or apply a concept from the reading, students should be

specifically encouraged to engage in planning and goal setting prior to negotiations.

This may be accomplished in the following ways:

1. Requiring students to engage in a planning process prior to simulated

negotiations, or to real-world experiences. Planning may include

preparation of information and arguments, setting negotiation goals and

objectives, predicting the opponent‘s objectives and personal style, and

selecting a strategy to achieve the goals.

2. Requiring students to “experiment” with new behaviors. Instructors often

make a point to encourage students to simply try out different negotiating

styles and approaches. Students may be encouraged to try more

cooperative or competitive behavior, be more or less talkative, or assume

positions of power contrary to their normal experience. The assumption

is that the class provides a safe environment in which to try new behavior

and gain feedback from others, but without endangering the substance of

an agreement or the long-term relationship between the parties that is at

stake in real negotiations.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-5

Students may also be specifically encouraged to practice the prescribed

behaviors of a particular model, such as different ways to achieve integrative

agreements, or different ways to act as a third party in resolving a dispute.

Finally,

students might learn new behaviors by imitating a model that negotiates correctly

(according to some prescriptive theory or framework). This process is analogous to

watching the tennis pro’s technique with a backhand swing, or watching video, and then

trying it yourself. While behavioral modeling has been used a great deal as a way to

master complex skills, remarkably little if any training in negotiation has used either live

or video models as a way to teach negotiation skills.

Actual Behavior – The primary vehicle for introducing actual negotiating

behavior in class is through role-playing and simulations. Some instructors use role-

plays and simulations at the beginning of a course, to acquaint students with the

behavioral dynamics before the conceptual material is addressed; others use them in the

middle or later parts of the course, to illustrate key principles or demonstrate the

complexity of a large inter-group negotiation; still others use them throughout the course,

beginning with simple scenarios (games and one issue negotiations), and building

toward more complex negotiations as the course progresses.

Role-plays and simulations may be conducted during class time, or they may be

set up at the end of a class, to be completed by the students on their own. I suggest

instructors use several of each kind. In-class activities allow the instructor to describe

the simulation and instructions clearly, monitor student behavior closely, and debrief

events “on the spot.” However, simulation effectiveness may be constrained if the

classroom facility does not have sufficient “break out” space for groups to meet and work

independently, or if the allotted time is inadequate. In contrast, simulations apart from

classes allow students to prepare at their leisure, control (and manipulate) the time and

place of negotiation, meet as often as is necessary, use breaks and recesses

strategically, etc. A twenty-minute in-class simulation between very competitive students

may consume three or four hours outside of class.

Grading – Several instructors have experimented with grading students on their

negotiating behavior. Some use simulations that allow various settlement packages to

be scored with point schemes (c.f. some of the DRRC exercises) and assign grades

based on the number of points won. With other simulations, grades can be determined

on the basis of who negotiated the better package for each party in the dispute, or who

invented the most integrative solutions. Unfortunately, there appear to be very few

efforts to evaluate students on the effectiveness of their behavior rather than on

outcomes.

Grading on the basis of actual negotiating outcomes is viewed as realistic by

some students, particularly those who already negotiate well, but as troublesome by

those who expect to have their performance judged by more traditional academic

methods.

Reaction and Reflection – Negotiation instructors who use simulations must

also devote ample class time to debriefing students about these experiences. There are

several objectives for the debriefing process:

All topics and a more specific list of references are covered in Negotiation, 6th Edition, by Lewicki, Barry

and Saunders, McGraw Hill.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-6

1. To compare and evaluate the different outcomes achieved by different

subgroups;

2. To compare and evaluate the different planning and strategizing

processes that led to these outcomes;

3. To help students compare and evaluate the differences between their

intended actions and what may have actually occurred;

4. To use the simulation to highlight key conceptual and theoretical points;

5. To create the opportunity for students to note deficiencies in their own

behavior, or the negotiation process, and to define —implicitly or explicitly

—new or different ways to behave.

There are many ways to achieve the reaction and reflection objectives through

course structure and design. First, students may discuss the simulation after it has

occurred, or they may complete some form of standard “debriefing” questionnaire.

Second, simulations may be videoed, and students may be asked to watch and critique

their behavior. Third, students may be asked to prepare a formal written analysis of the

simulation, applying theories and concepts to the situation or setting explicit goals for

future behavior. Instructors frequently use these application papers or journals to

encourage students to monitor their own behavior and apply theory as appropriate.

Finally, students may also be required to complete a comprehensive assessment of their

own “negotiating style.” Data for this assessment can be generated from reflection on

their behavior in the simulations, feedback from other students and by completing one or

more personality self-assessment questionnaires on dimensions related to negotiation —

such as conflict management style, assertiveness, ethics, etc.

Negotiation case studies are another major learning vehicle in the reaction and

reflection phase. Cases expose students to the negotiating behavior of others,

encouraging examination of behavior in the context in which it occurs. Theories,

concepts and models are also provided to enrich intellectual comprehension. Cases are

discussed in class or may be given as examinations to test successful analysis and

application of theory. Videos are also good case material, allowing students the

opportunity to observe nonverbal behavior and strategic nuances as well as negotiation

techniques. Unfortunately, few quality case-oriented films and videos have been

available for instructional use (see the Additional Resources file), but this situation is

changing. Instructors and encouraged to use a major search engine, searching

“Negotiation Videos’, as this situation changes rapidly.

Differences Among Learning Populations – Whether the instructional module

is two hours, one day, three days or an entire semester, the instructional design should

include all four elements of the experiential learning module. This cycle may be

completed once in a short program, or multiple times in a longer program or course.

Measurement may be formal, as in graded examinations and papers, or informal, as by

simply noting behavior. Moreover, students should be encouraged to continue to keep a

personal journal to monitor their negotiating behavior and compare goals set prior to

actual negotiations with the results of the process. As in any skill development program,

consistent monitoring and practice of new and different behavior is more likely to lead to

behavior change and enhanced effectiveness.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-7

In addition, different student populations should probably receive varying

exposure to different components of the learning module. University students are more

comfortable with theory and abstraction, and more able to work with conceptual models

that may not have ready application. In contrast, executives and practitioners are

generally immersed in the behavioral dynamics of the process, but are less facile with

the complex theoretical abstractions. Instructors working with these latter groups will

find it more useful to limit conceptual input to “friendly theories”: those that are less

abstract, or immediately tied to in-class simulations, case analyses, or elaborate,

relevant examples.

Unique Problems In Teaching Negotiation

I believe that teaching negotiation and conflict management creates several

unique challenges and problems that instructors do not typically encounter in other

courses. I will now describe some of these challenges.

1. The Volatility and Unpredictability of Classroom Dynamics. Most negotiation

instructors are intellectually aware of the dynamics of conflict. Competitiveness and

conflict lead to heightened emotions, distortion of perception and judgment,

misattribution of the causes of behavior, heightened cohesiveness in one’s own group,

and the enhanced likelihood of behaving unproductively and unethically. However, it is

one thing to understand these dynamics intellectually and recognize them in others, and

another to experience and manage them.

Because of these dynamics, courses in conflict, power, and negotiation often

energize and motivate students, making classes exciting. Events occur that students

remember long after the course is over and the intellectual content is forgotten. There

is, however, a negative side to these dynamics: students will often be angry at one

another and sometimes at the instructor. They will say things they don’t mean, and do

things for which they do not understand the consequences. They will get carried away

by the moment yet be surprised or even remorseful later.

The instructor, who cannot run away from such situations, must be comfortable

around others who are in conflict. Sometimes an instructor is unwittingly entrapped in

these dynamics, becoming “part of the problem” rather than an uninvolved observer.

Because classroom events are not always predictable and plan-able, an instructor of a

course dealing with negotiation and conflict management should be prepared to

address, manage, and integrate spontaneous classroom events with the learning

objectives of the course.

2. Multiple Instructor Roles. In a traditional academic course, the instructor has

clear-cut role responsibilities: to structure a coherent course outline, lecture, facilitate

discussion, and evaluate student performance. However, by virtue of the variety of

educational experiences described earlier, as well as the unpredictability of conflict

dynamics, instructors in negotiation courses are placed in multiple (and often conflicting)

roles. Instructors must continue to act as formal educators, but also have enhanced

responsibilities as classroom managers, referees, mediators and counselors. While

these roles and accompanying responsibilities may appear to be distinct and explicit, in

practice they are frequently vague or in direct conflict. Following are some guidelines for

each role:

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-8

Educator/Evaluator. The instructor’s responsibilities are, as just outlined, to

structure the course, to be an expert in the conceptual foundations of conflict and

negotiation, to convey that expertise through lectures or readings, to facilitate classroom

discussion, and to evaluate student learning and performance.

Classroom Manager. The instructor’s job is to orchestrate the learning

experience. Role-plays need to be planned with regard to preparation and distribution of

materials, securing adequate facilities, time scheduling, and organizing students into

groups. Before an exercise is concluded, students should discuss the exercise and

abstract key points. Simulations are useless activities without this analysis. Finally,

applications should be drawn to the major conceptual points.

Regulator/Referee. The instructor’s responsibilities are to define the boundaries

for appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the classroom and in simulations. The

instructor will frequently become the policeman, prosecutor, judge and jury in setting and

enforcing rules. Some of those rules are academic, while others are procedural and

relate to the simulation. The instructor must decide which rules to make, how to enforce

them, and what to do when they are broken.

Mediator/Counselor. Finally, as noted earlier, students often become angry and

entrapped in the conflict dynamics. Negotiations may have deadlocked, or ended in

betrayal. Yet for the educational process to proceed, students must be able to detach

themselves sufficiently to assess events and behavior and move on to other activities.

The instructor’s job is to help the class achieve this balance, and frequently requires

intervention as a mediator or counselor.

Role conflict for the instructor consistently occurs among these various role

responsibilities. These conflicts arise when student and instructor disagree on the

appropriate role to be taken, or when an instructor must assume several different roles

and each prescribes a different behavior. Management of these conflicts can

significantly enhance or detract from the instructor’s enjoyment of a course, student

learning in a course, and student satisfaction with the course. Examples of such conflict

are:

Students try to anticipate the instructor’s implicit models for effective

negotiating behavior. As a result, they are afraid to be spontaneous, take

risks or try new behaviors because they believe the instructor will use grades

to punish them (conflict between the Evaluator and Educator roles).

Instructors must decide whether to allow students to behave destructively,

and to discover the consequences for themselves, as opposed to stopping

that behavior and depriving the student of the learning experience. Similarly,

instructors must decide when to stop a simulation to curtail escalating conflict

(Educator and Referee roles).

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-9

Instructors often require students to analyze their behavior through self–

assessment papers and journals. Some of the least experienced and most

destructive student negotiators are blind to their own behavior and the

consequences it has for others. Instructors need to critique this behavior in

their feedback on the paper; yet the student must believe that the academic

grade awarded on the papers reflects the quality of analysis, not the behavior

itself. In short, academic assessments must be seen as independent of

judgments about the effectiveness of negotiating behavior (Evaluator and

Counselor role).

Resolution of Instructor Role Conflict. The examples just noted are only a

few of the role conflicts the instructor will experience. Each conflict offers the instructor a

dilemma and a choice point for effective course management. Based on my experience,

there are several key principles that may be used to guide the instructor’s resolution of

these choice dilemmas:

Be explicit with students about the instructor’s multiple role responsibilities,

and the inevitability of role conflict — whether real or perceived. These

possible role conflicts should be discussed on the first day of class, when

students may hear the problem but not understand it. They may then be

repeated as the need arises in the course.

Be explicit with students in advance about the formal criteria for grading in the

course, and how the criteria will be applied. This is a principle of good

teaching in any classroom, but it is even more critical in a negotiation course.

Explicit and independent criteria help students believe that the grading

process is independent of their behavior or an instructor’s “whimsical

judgment.”

Be clear that students should do as they please, but that they are responsible

for the consequences of their behavior. In a course that requires extensive

role-playing and simulation, students frequently use instructors as a target for

both dependence and counter-dependence. These projections help to

confound the instructor roles. For example, on the one hand, students fear

that if they misbehave in a simulation (e.g., act exploitatively or unethically),

their grade will be affected. So they act inhibited, or ask the instructor’s

“permission” to behave in ways they ordinarily would not. On the other hand,

students also believe that the instructor will stop, control, or regulate

undesirable behavior; hence they behave more competitively or outrageously

than they might otherwise. The instructor should make it clear that students

not only make their own choices about their behavior, but also must live with

the consequences of that behavior. If they choose to behave competitively or

unethically and engender anger or mistrust among their classmates, these

are realistic consequences that cannot be avoided.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-10

3. Regulating Classroom Dynamics. There are a number of other procedural

rules that are necessary and useful for instructors to stipulate, such as the following:

• All behavior, including behavior in simulations and role–plays, is “real.”

Students sometimes try to argue (usually ex post facto) that role-playing and

simulations are not “real” because there are no actual outcomes and people play

artificial roles. These arguments are often used to avoid taking responsibility for

their behavior or its consequences, or to deny the impact of that behavior on

others. Moreover, they argue that they certainly would have behaved differently

had this been a “real” situation. Instructors will recognize this behavior as

defensive and myopic, yet often feel frustrated in their inability to persuade the

student that this is a limited and perhaps distorted view. Instead of becoming

entangled in such arguments, it is usually easier to have students accept the

initial premise that all behavior in the course is “real,” that they make choices

about the way they behave, that behavior has consequences and they must be

willing to live with them. The stakes may be different outside the classroom, but

the behavior is no less real.

• It is imperative that the confidential information provided in most role-playing

scenarios will in fact be treated as confidential. Instructors should routinely insist

that students not read the opposite side‘s information, or excuse themselves from

the exercise if they are aware of the other side’s confidential information.

• Small groups negotiating within the context of a larger course should view

behavior as independent and autonomous from other small groups. This is an

extension of the previous procedural rule on confidentiality, but applies to

discussing the role-play with other students in the course before they have

completed the exercise. Gaining confidential information from other groups that

may have already completed negotiations, etc. will be viewed in the same light as

reviewing the other side’s confidential briefing documents.

• The behavior of individuals and groups within the boundaries of the course

should be held in strict confidence. Courses in negotiation typically occur within

a larger academic context, in which students may know one another very well.

Behavioral dynamics in the course may frequently become the subject of

discussion and gossip outside the course, perhaps embarrassing students who

are not proud of their behavior. Students should be encouraged to respect the

rights of others and to refrain from out-of-class discussions.

4. Unethical Conduct. Violations of confidentiality are only one form of ethical

violation. Students may “bluff” about their position, or tell an outright lie. They may spy

on another’s planning session, or steal the other’s documents. They may try to bribe or

influence a referee. Instructors should treat these events as important dynamics that

need review and attention. Moreover, while instructors frequently set aside one or more

classes to discuss ethics specifically, I believe that the best discussions occur “on the

spot,” as perceived ethical violations occur and are challenged. I suggest the following

strategies for discussing ethical issues:

• Make note of the issues raised and bring them up in the debriefing of an activity

(particularly if students do not raise them).

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-11

• Do not take a normative position as the instructor. Instead, work to elicit the

perceptions and perspectives of the actor, those affected by the action, and

observers.

• Use the discussion to develop an agreement on the implied ethical “rule” that

may have been violated (e.g., “Lying is bad”). Test out whether everyone agrees

that this is the rule, whether the rule applies in this case, and whether the rule

has been actually violated. The odds are that the class will not be unanimous on

this point.

• Use the rule and its perceived violation to highlight how people disagree about

the rules that govern competitive social behavior. Also, point out how the

distorted perceptions that accompany conflict enhance the debate about

perceived ethical violations and their appropriateness.

5. Extreme Emotionalism, Revenge and Violence. Students, and even

experienced instructors laugh nervously when this is mentioned. However, “truth in

packaging” requires that I admit that occasional episodes of extreme emotion, revenge,

and violence do occur.

Students don’t believe that anyone would ever get that upset over a “silly” simulation;

many inexperienced instructors don’t believe it either. Yet people become very upset

when betrayed, duped or ignored. Heated words and accusations can lead to long-

standing feuds, revenge, and even physical confrontation. The following steps are

recommended to prepare for this possibility:

• A “no violence” rule should be announced at the beginning of the course.

Students may laugh it off, but the point should be made clear.

• Instructors should instantly terminate a simulation or role-play when passions

become extreme. Announce that the exercise is over, separate the parties, allow

individuals to calm down, and/or call a break. When passions cool, reconvene

that group and have people come to grips with what occurred. I strongly

recommended that students be encouraged to “ventilate” by talking about how

they feel, but not by hurling accusations at the other side and resuming the fight.

I decidedly do not recommend that the instructor dismiss the class and ask

people to “cool off and come back next week.” This only allows students to

continue the dispute outside the classroom, and to protract the feud in the

broader academic culture by spreading rumors, building alliances and allowing

the feud to surface in other courses.

6. Negotiating Rules and Procedures With Students. There are usually one or

more students who will attempt to use the substantive topics of the course as a rationale

for testing the instructor. If, as the instructor may maintain, many things in the world are

negotiable, then why not the course requirements, rules and procedures? These

students will either explicitly attempt to renegotiate the rules — due dates, content of

assignments, exemption from assignments — or defy the rules and then attempt to

negotiate the consequences. Other students will explicitly state that the best way to

evaluate students in the course is by grading their negotiating effectiveness with other

students or with the instructor. Finally, others will attempt to renegotiate grades and

evaluations.

Challenges of Teaching Negotiation1

1-12

Some instructors are comfortable simply saying “no” to these students, enforcing

the preset rules and procedures. Others are torn by the compelling persuasiveness of

the arguments, or perhaps their desire to reward the innovative and enterprising student

who creatively challenges the system. Once again, there are no hard and fast answers,

but my recommendation is to stick with the explicit rules.

The fairness and equity of the grading system is at stake in this discussion. If the

instructor plans to evaluate academic performance based on examinations or papers,

then students believe this system will be consistently applied to all. If some students can

successfully renegotiate their academic obligations with an instructor, the instructor’s

fairness is called into question. An instructor cannot reward such entrepreneurial

initiative by one student without conveying the impression that the rules are not

systematically and uniformly applied. Such negative perceptions are ultimately

detrimental to an instructor’s evaluation and adjudged effectiveness by the class

majority. The instructor will lose credibility and respect in the eyes of the students.

GOOD LUCK!

REFERENCES

Kolb, D., Rubin, I.M., and McIntyre, J.M. Organizational Psychology. 4th Ed.

Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 1983.