Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Goals-Plans-Action Approach to Lawyers’
CommunicationRobert C. Richards, Jr. PhD, JD
The Pennsylvania State University
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Topic:Lawyers’ goal-
oriented communication
Motivation for the Study:
Limitations of earlier research
Earlier research on lawyers’
goal-oriented communication
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
This Study
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Theory
Dillard’s (2004) Goals-Plans-
Action Model
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION++
+
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION+-
-
GOAL
GOAL
GOAL
+-
- Secondary Goals
Primary Goal
Setting
U.S. State Government Law Offices
Counseling Non-lawyer
Lawmakers
about Proposed Statutes or Regulations
Variables
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
Goals
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Plan Elements
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
Topics
7 Topics
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSEXISTING LAWS
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
NEED
HISTORY
Policy-Objective Matters
EFFECTIVENESS
POLICY OBJECTIVES
EXISTING LAWS
EFFECTS ON LAWS IN FORCE
Existing Laws
LAWS IN FORCE
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSEXISTING LAWS
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
Functions
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
Narrative
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
Organizational Factors
Governmental BranchRegion
Governmental BranchRegion
Governmental Branch
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Region
Methods
SurveyCompare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Survey (N = 226)Compare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Survey (N = 226)Compare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Sample
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Results
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Goal Structure
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
PRIMARY GOAL
INFORMED DECISION
INFORMED DECISION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
SECONDARY GOALS
COMPLIANCE IMPARTIALITY
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYCOMPLIANCE
?INFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Plan Content
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSNARRATIVE
MIDPOINT
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSNARRATIVE
INCLUDED
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
EXCLUDEDOTHER
JURISDICTIONS’ LAWS
NARRATIVE
Goals Plans
Goal: Informed Decision
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
+INFORMED DECISION
+FUNCTIONS
(ALL)
NARRATIVE
+
Goal: Compliance
BASES FOR LEGAL
CHALLENGES
+
COMPLIANCE
Goal Mediation
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
+INFORM RE:
POLICY OBJECTIVES
+IMPLEMENTATION
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
+
INFORMED DECISION
+
INFORMED DECISION
DESCRIPTION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
INFORMED DECISION
APPLICATION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
INFORMED DECISION
EVALUATION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
INFORMED DECISION
NARRATIVE
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
Goal Complements
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCE
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
IMPARTIALITY LANGUAGE EFFECTS+
INFORMED DECISION
+
Goal Conflicts
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
++
-
IMPARTIALITY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
+
-
INFORMED DECISION
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY EVALUATION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
++
-
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYDESCRIPTION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
+
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCEAPPLICATION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
+
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCENARRATIVE
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
Organizational Factors
Governmental Branch Differences
No Goal Differences
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
-
IMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LEGISLATIVE VS.
EXECUTIVE COUNSEL
--
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
LEGISLATIVE VS.
EXECUTIVE COUNSEL -
-
No Evidence of Goal Mediation
Regional Differences
+INFORMED DECISION
+ UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
EVALUATION+
+ DESCRIPTION
+ POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
No Evidence of Goal Mediation
Key Points
Goal conflicts may discourage lawyers
from using some communication
techniques that can aid lawmakers,
especially conflicts involving goals of Impartiality and
Compliance,
and especially regarding discussion of Policy Objectives,
and use of Application and Narrative.
Legislative lawyers were less likely than
administrative lawyers to discuss
Policy Objectives and to use Application.
Implications
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
ReferenceDillard, J. P. (2004). The goals-plans-action model of interpersonal influence. In J. S. Seiter & R. H. Gass (Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 185–206). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
For More InformationSee Richards (2016), Chapter 3 and Appendix A, at: https://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/about-the-author/dissertation/
