Managing Power: The Practical Work of Negotiating Interests

The purpose of this study was to investigate how adult educators negotiate power and interests in program planning for training and development in a corporate setting. The research methodology was a descriptive qualitative study of typical program planning practices of adult educators in a multi-national corporation. The chief finding was that planners' "practical" strategic action for negotiating interests and power varied according to specific situations and how planners perceived the involvement of various stakeholders. Theoretical Framework Adult education program planning literature has historically focused primarily on the more technical aspects of program planning (Sork & Buskey, 1986; Wilson & Cervero, 1997). By now very familiar to most adult educators, these technical aspects of program planning encompass some version of a step-wise process of assessing needs, defining learning objectives, creating learning experiences and selecting content, managing programs, and evaluating them (Apps, 1979; Boone, 1985; Boyle, 1981; Knowles, 1980; Langenbach, 1988; Sork & Buskey, 1986; Sork & Caffarella, 1989; Tyler, 1949). Sork (1996, 2000) refers to these steps as ones which fall along the technical dimension of program planning. Research in the past decade, however, has begun to focus attention on what Sork (1996, 2000) refers to as the socio-political and ethical dimensions of program planning. To this end, Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996, 1998) have argued that program planning be understood as a social activity in which adult educators negotiate personal and organizational interests within relationships of power. Their research has demonstrated that interests are causally related to which programs get planned. A number of investigations have demonstrated the centrality of negotiating power and interests (e.g., Archie-Booker, Cervero, & Langone, 1999; McClean, 1997; Mills, Cervero, Langone, & Wilson, 1995; Rees, Cervero, Moshi, & Wilson, 1997; Sessions & Cervero, 1999; Wilson, 1999). From this work we can say with some confidence that we know what adult educators do. Although the case studies in Cervero and Wilson (1994; 1996) and other studies offer some important insights, we know relatively less, however, about how adult educators actually negotiate multiple and often conflicting interests in practice. Research in the past decade, however, has begun to focus attention on what Sork (1996, 2000) refers to as the socio-political and ethical dimensions of program planning. To this end, Cervero and Wilson (1994, 1996, 1998) have argued that program planning be understood as a social activity in which adult educators negotiate personal and organizational interests within relationships of power. Their research has demonstrated that interests are causally related to which programs get planned. A number of investigations have demonstrated the centrality of negotiating power and interests (e.g., Archie-Booker, Cervero, & Langone, 1999; McClean, 1997; Mills, Cervero, Langone, & Wilson, 1995; Rees, Cervero, Moshi, & Wilson, 1997; Sessions & Cervero, 1999; Wilson, 1999). From this work we can say with some confidence that we know what adult educators do. Although the case studies in Cervero and Wilson (1994; 1996) and other studies offer some important insights, we know relatively less, however, about how adult educators actually negotiate multiple and often conflicting interests in practice.