A Goals-Plans-Action Approach to Lawyers' Communication

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/