P.J. BeersH.P.A. BoshuizenP.A. Kirschner

Agreeing to Disagree:Agreeing to Disagree:Perspective, Negotiation andPerspective, Negotiation andCommon Ground in TeamsCommon Ground in Teams

Wicked problems; e.g.Wicked problems; e.g.

Marketing

Macro-economics

Organisation science

Investment decision

PePersrspepectctiviveses

From unshared to constructed From unshared to constructed knowledgeknowledge

Unshared knowledg

eExternalis

ed knowledge

Common ground

Shared knowledge

Constructed

knowledge

Externalisation

Internalisation

Negotiation

Integration

Negotiation ToolNegotiation Tool

Research questionsResearch questions

• Does the tool increase thinking about:– The status of a conversation topic– Other team members– Collaboration strategy

• What thoughts do participants report about negotiation processes?

• What thoughts do participants report about the tool?

Pilot studyPilot study

Quantitative analysisQuantitative analysis

• Unshared knowledge• External knowledge• Common ground;• Other team members;• Strategic planning;

Qualitative analysisQualitative analysis

• Misunderstandings• Difference between understanding

and agreement• Construction of knowledge• Difference in perspective• Commitment to common ground• Thoughts about the tool

Results quantitative analysisResults quantitative analysis

Mean

Tool No Tool

Active knowledge 0.031 0.033

External knowledge 0.337 0.359

Common ground 0.087 0.073

Other team members 0.710 0.774

Strategy 0.239 0.229

Number of stops 17.33 11.33

Results qualitative analysisResults qualitative analysis

• Many misunderstandings• Participants grasp difference

understanding vs. opinion• Participants learn together• Participants recognise differences in

perspective• Commitment to grounding ranges from

sheer manners to shared agreement – Commitment to grounding seems higher in

groups with the tool

Results about the toolResults about the tool

• Record of common ground• Structuring the discussion• Using the board to ‘be useful’

• Groups without the tool sometimes don’t care about the board

ConclusionsConclusions

• Setting offers enough opportunity for the tool to work

• Participants are able to use the tool

• Participants may have been more motivated to grounding with the tool