Page 1
A Goals-Plans-Action Approach to Lawyers’
CommunicationRobert C. Richards, Jr. PhD, JD
The Pennsylvania State University
Page 2
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Page 3
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Page 4
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Page 5
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Page 6
MotivationTheoryVariablesResultsImplications
Page 7
Topic:Lawyers’ goal-
oriented communication
Page 8
Motivation for the Study:
Limitations of earlier research
Page 9
Earlier research on lawyers’
goal-oriented communication
Page 10
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Page 11
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Page 12
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Page 13
Courtroom
Individual / dyadic
Politeness / Facework
Qualitative
Page 15
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Page 16
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Page 17
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Page 18
Govt, Counseling
Organizational
Dillard’s GPA Model
Quantitative
Page 20
Dillard’s (2004) Goals-Plans-
Action Model
Page 21
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
Page 22
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
Page 23
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
Page 24
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION
Page 25
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION++
+
Page 26
GOAL
PLAN
+
ACTION
GOAL
GOAL
ACTION
ACTION+-
-
Page 27
GOAL
GOAL
GOAL
+-
- Secondary Goals
Primary Goal
Page 29
U.S. State Government Law Offices
Page 30
Counseling Non-lawyer
Lawmakers
Page 31
about Proposed Statutes or Regulations
Page 33
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
Page 34
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
Page 35
GoalsPlan ElementsOrganizational Factors
Page 37
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 38
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 39
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 40
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 41
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 42
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 44
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
Page 45
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
Page 46
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
Page 47
TopicsFunctionsNarrative
Page 50
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSEXISTING LAWS
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
Page 51
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
Page 52
NEED
HISTORY
Policy-Objective Matters
EFFECTIVENESS
POLICY OBJECTIVES
Page 54
EFFECTS ON LAWS IN FORCE
Existing Laws
LAWS IN FORCE
Page 55
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 56
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 57
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 58
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 59
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 60
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
Page 61
BASES FOR LEGAL CHALLENGESIMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LANGUAGE EFFECTS
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSEXISTING LAWS
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
Page 63
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
Page 64
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
Page 65
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
Page 66
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
DESCRIPTION
Page 68
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
Page 69
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
Page 70
NON-NARRATIVE
NARRATIVE
Page 71
Organizational Factors
Page 72
Governmental BranchRegion
Page 73
Governmental BranchRegion
Page 74
Governmental Branch
Page 75
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Page 76
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Page 77
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
Page 84
SurveyCompare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Page 85
Survey (N = 226)Compare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Page 86
Survey (N = 226)Compare MeansStructural-Equation Modeling
Page 88
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
Page 89
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
Page 90
N = 22638% Women9.8 Years in Office (Mean)
Page 91
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Page 92
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Page 93
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Page 94
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Page 95
6% Legislative20% Northeast25% Midwest35% South20% West
Page 97
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Page 98
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Page 99
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Page 100
Goal StructurePlan ContentGoals PlansOrganizational Factors
Page 102
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 103
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
PRIMARY GOAL
INFORMED DECISION
Page 104
INFORMED DECISION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
SECONDARY GOALS
COMPLIANCE IMPARTIALITY
Page 105
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYCOMPLIANCE
?INFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
Page 106
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYINFORM
RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
COMPLIANCE
Page 108
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSNARRATIVE
MIDPOINT
Page 109
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWSNARRATIVE
INCLUDED
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
Page 110
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
FUNCTIONS (ALL)
EXCLUDEDOTHER
JURISDICTIONS’ LAWS
NARRATIVE
Page 112
Goal: Informed Decision
Page 113
TOPICS (ALL BUT 1)
+INFORMED DECISION
+FUNCTIONS
(ALL)
NARRATIVE
+
Page 114
Goal: Compliance
Page 115
BASES FOR LEGAL
CHALLENGES
+
COMPLIANCE
Page 117
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
+INFORM RE:
POLICY OBJECTIVES
+IMPLEMENTATION
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
+
INFORMED DECISION
+
Page 118
INFORMED DECISION
DESCRIPTION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
Page 119
INFORMED DECISION
APPLICATION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
Page 120
INFORMED DECISION
EVALUATION
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
Page 121
INFORMED DECISION
NARRATIVE
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
Page 122
Goal Complements
Page 123
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCE
OTHER JURISDICTIONS’
LAWS
INFORM RE: POLICY OBJECTIVES
++
+
Page 124
IMPARTIALITY LANGUAGE EFFECTS+
INFORMED DECISION
+
Page 126
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
++
-
Page 127
IMPARTIALITY
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
+
-
INFORMED DECISION
Page 128
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITY EVALUATION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
++
-
Page 129
INFORMED DECISION
IMPARTIALITYDESCRIPTION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
+
Page 130
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCEAPPLICATION
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
+
Page 131
INFORMED DECISION
COMPLIANCENARRATIVE
INFORM RE: POLICY
OBJECTIVES
+
+
-
Page 132
Organizational Factors
Page 133
Governmental Branch Differences
Page 134
No Goal Differences
Page 135
POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
-
IMPLEMENTATION
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
LEGISLATIVE VS.
EXECUTIVE COUNSEL
--
Page 136
APPLICATION
EVALUATION
LEGISLATIVE VS.
EXECUTIVE COUNSEL -
-
Page 137
No Evidence of Goal Mediation
Page 138
Regional Differences
Page 139
+INFORMED DECISION
Page 140
+ UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
EVALUATION+
Page 142
+ POLICY-OBJECTIVE MATTERS
Page 143
No Evidence of Goal Mediation
Page 145
Goal conflicts may discourage lawyers
from using some communication
techniques that can aid lawmakers,
Page 146
especially conflicts involving goals of Impartiality and
Compliance,
Page 147
and especially regarding discussion of Policy Objectives,
and use of Application and Narrative.
Page 148
Legislative lawyers were less likely than
administrative lawyers to discuss
Policy Objectives and to use Application.
Page 150
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Page 151
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Page 152
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Page 153
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Page 154
Lawmakers Informed: -Remedy: EducationGPA Model: +Quant Analysis: +Org Level Analysis: +
Page 155
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.
Page 156
For More InformationSee Richards (2016), Chapter 3 and Appendix A, at: https://legalinformatics.wordpress.com/about/about-the-author/dissertation/