Advanced Negotiation: How Can Learning Transfer to Practice?
A training course can generate insightful discussions without changing the next negotiation. For a purchasing or manufacturing manager, the useful question is therefore precise: how should cases be studied so that a learned principle is recognised in a new situation?
What the literature establishes
Jeffrey Loewenstein, Leigh Thompson and Dedre Gentner (1999, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review) show that explicitly comparing negotiation cases can facilitate the transfer of a principle to a new negotiation. In their experiments, this comparison helps participants recognise a common structure despite differences in context. Learning therefore depends not only on exposure to a good example, but also on the work of drawing connections between examples.
The mechanism: separating structure from setting
Dedre Gentner, Jeffrey Loewenstein and Leigh Thompson (2003, Journal of Educational Psychology) further examine this mechanism of analogical encoding: comparing situations helps learners extract a reusable relational schema. In negotiation, this includes understanding how the terms of an agreement address the disagreement, rather than remembering only the industry or the people in the case. Two seemingly unrelated cases can thus become complementary learning materials.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a training course simply needs more case studies. These studies support a more specific proposition: explicit comparison should be structured rather than left to participants' initiative. Asking what is similar, what differs and why a solution works is not the same as recounting several successful negotiations. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not guarantee
These experimental findings do not demonstrate that participants will consistently apply the principle in their professional negotiations over time. Mandates, technical constraints and the commitments parties can actually make may render a solution impracticable, even when its logic is understood. Training evaluation should therefore distinguish between recognising the principle, using it appropriately and achieving a commercial outcome.
A practical check in Neuchâtel
For a practical application of SHR's “Advanced Negotiation” programme in Neuchâtel, participants could compare a watchmaking component qualification case with a precision microelectronics component delivery case, then spell out their shared constraints and differences. Before and after this exercise, present two previously unseen microtechnology cases of comparable difficulty, using criteria defined in advance: identification of the principle, justification of its applicability and a proposal compatible with technical constraints. The indicator is the proportion of responses meeting all three criteria, supplemented by a documented review of a subsequent application in a real negotiation. This monitoring makes transfer observable without automatically attributing every improvement in an agreement to the training. To go further: explore the Advanced Negotiation training in Neuchâtel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Advanced Negotiation in Neuchâtel
- advanced negotiation
- Neuchâtel
- research
- training neuchâtel