Navigating Community-Healthcare Negotiations - Essay Sample

Negotiations - Day 1

Before starting the negotiations, Melanie, the mediator, described her primary goal: ensure that the communication between the two parties, the Elmwood hospital and the Concerned Community Coalition (CCC), remains civil and fruitful, intervening only when necessary to ensure that the topics discussed are focused. The parties were encouraged to conform with the Mediation Guide and Negotiation book. Melanie also instructed both parties to rank their concerns and demands in order of their significance and possible alternatives.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

After prioritizing concerns, the hospital board, Larry and Kenneth, tabled that: They are reluctant to substitute the hospital board with non-hospital staff, but they can surrender two seats in the board for the CCC members. Rather than a 100% increase to outpatient facilities, they offered an instant 40% increase, which will be subject to a 10% increase every year (Patel & Rubin, 2016). They also consented that a small community clinic with a daycare facility in the main hospital will be developed. They also agreed to offer a preventive diagnostic mobile team comprised of hospital employees. And lastly, they declined to replace the director.

Negotiations - Day 2

The CCC responded to all counteroffers. Although they accepted that two seats would be nice, they insisted on a counteroffer of five seats. They also acknowledged that they understood that the current director might not be replaced. But they demanded that he faces repercussions since he declined to consider their concerns forcing them to undertake drastic steps to acquire a sit-in. They proposed an endorsement of a community Relations Director to manage significant concerns relating to the community as they arrive.

Some of the counteroffers were incredibly unachievable and would cause significant financial impacts to the organization. Melanie, the mediator, had to chip in and explain some critical concerns relating to the hospital. One the hospital requires largely relies on the board for financial stability. Given that the CCC was comprised of low-income individuals, their minimal financial input to the hospital would worsen the situation if more CCC members make up the hospital board. Furthermore, the gradual outpatient facility development would take a while because it will prompt the immediate hiring of new hospital-staff. Extensions would mean a strain in the efficiency of the hospital's overall service delivery. After a thorough discussion and understanding, the following negotiations terms were reached.

Negotiation Results

Three board seats were provided to the CCC. A Community Relations Director position was instituted to act as a liaison between the community and the hospital. In order to manage the patient care needs, it was agreed outpatient facilities would increase by 40% with an annual increase of 10% (Patel & Rubin, 2016). A mobile diagnostic center was agreed to be put up, which would comprise of two vehicles, and the program will be implemented within two months after the agreement.

The demand for an additional healthcare center will require extensive financing; therefore, it was pushed to be reevaluated within six months. However, the reevaluation relies on the effectiveness of the mobile diagnostic center. Furthermore, the parties agreed that they would engage the qualified individuals in the field of public health from the community. The community-acquired health officials would help in providing permanent and cost-effective hospital staff to the Elmwood hospital.

Benefits of the Negotiation to the Parties

The negotiations led to a win-win situation. The CCC managed to influence the hospital board and make a negotiation. The community would not have acquired all the extra care methods without the determination and persistence of the CCC. The Elmwood hospital also managed to win the heart of the community it exists in; poor relations with the community could denote a restrained cordial relationship with the CCC limiting its efficiency in conducting business. The hospital also managed to get an adequate allowance to support its financial needs considering that with a lengthened and gradual fulfillment process, it can easily manage to accomplish the community needs without straining their financial capability.

Application of Reading Materials

The mediator employed extensive contribution negotiation scholarly works. One crucial area the mediator used is how to utilize third-party intervention. Melanie applies the benefits of a third-party mediator to ensure civility, stability, and seamless negotiations (Lewicki et al., 2015). Through the third-party guidelines, she manages to enhance communication among the two parties, repair the strained relationships, and increase the commitment and satisfaction focused on the negotiations. Melanie also focuses on building relationships among the two opponents in a way that they can effectively rely on each other while serving each party's interests.

The other crucial negotiation area applied is investigative negotiation. Investigative negotiation involves undertaking insightful research on both parties' needs, concerns, and constraints (Malhotra and Bazerman, 2007). The mediator took an in-depth analysis of the hospital and managed to learn where the counteroffers would limit sustainable negotiations. She applied the principles of investigative investigation, such as do not just discuss what both parties need - determine why they need it. Through the principle, the mediator managed to clearly explain to the CCC why relinquishing many seats in the hospital board would affect the financial input brought in by the hospital. She also sought the principle of understanding and managing the constraints of the opponent (Richards et al., 2020). Melanie explains to the CCC the staffing challenges that the hospital faces as it attempts to fulfill the healthcare needs of the growing community. In return, the community sought to provide staffing to the hospital, hence managing a constraint to the hospital of inadequate staffing, which could have limited the hospital's extension plan.

Moreover, Melanie utilizes shadow negotiation and the social contract in managing the conflict (Patel & Rubin, 2016). She employs shadow negotiations, which involve negotiations occurring within negotiations. Through shadow negotiations, she manages to negotiate with the CCC on the way they can help the Elmwood Hospital with staff who can help manage their employee crisis. Melanie also manages social contract through ensuring ongoing decision making, continuous contingency strategies, harmonious dispute resolution, and effective communication among the parties (Nakasako, 2016). Melanie also ensured that she prevented impasses in the negotiation through monitoring the interactive quality of the process, and she is cautious in interpreting the behavior of the CCC who are adamant about leaving without a winning deal.

Future Improvements

The negotiation ended in a positive note, and both parties walked with a substantial mutual benefit. The mediator managed to balance both parties that, as they exerted a significant amount of control throughout the negotiation and developed specific ground rules and ground rules, despite that conducting a negotiation involving three different parties was quite difficult. It was a challenge to coordinate and ensure that all parties and members were on the same page during each phase of the negotiation. When managing a difficult negotiation in the future, Melanie will ensure that she does not take anything personally, after specific questions instead of making general statements, and be more assertive instead of obnoxious (Bell & Valley, 2020).

The success of the negotiation is due to the determination and organization of the team leads. In the future, Melania should ensure that she diagnosis the negotiation's fundamental structure. A fundamental structure involves making a conscious decision relating to whether the parties are facing a distributive, blended, or integrative negotiation. Moreover, she needs to master the main paradoxes of negotiation. Successful negotiations demand great value, which is the bottom-line factor (Lenz & Schoop, 2017).

Although the negotiation was successful, the Elmwood Hospital did not gain significant value from the negotiation as the CCC were the greater winners in the negotiation. The CCC secured a considerable number of seats in the hospital board, gained an independent position of Community Relations Director who pushes the community agenda in the hospital, as well as managed to acquire community-focused healthcare services. On the other hand, the hospital only incurred extra expenses and the goodwill of the community it operates in. In the larger context, the hospital ended up losing great value in the negotiation.

Besides, considering that the hospital and the CCC have agreed to work collaboratively, there is a need for Melanie to learn how to manage the coalition actively. After the negotiation, the two parties are aligned to work together to counter their differences. Therefore, there is a need for consistent and robust assessment and management of the coalitions proactively. Monitoring and managing the coalition demands significant effort and time, and it can likely result in large payoffs in the implementation phase (Malhotra and Bazerman, 2007).

Owing to that, only one party gained value from the negotiation; there arises the issue of fairness and rationality. Despite that both the parties harmoniously agreed on the negotiations, the outcome was not quite fair to the hospital (Väyrynen, 2018). In future negotiations, the mediator will need to consider other viable negotiation terms that not only lead to a win-win situation but can be considered fair and rational in terms of value.

References

Bell, A., & Valley, T. (2020). The art of negotiation exercise design: Five basic principles to produce powerful learning experiences. Negotiation Journal, 36(1), 57-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12305

Lenz, A., & Schoop, M. (2017, August). Decision Problems in Requirements Negotiations–Identifying the Underlying Structures. In International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation (pp. 120-131). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_9

Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M., (2015). Negotiation readings, exercises, and cases, McGraw Hill Education.

Malhotra, D., and Bazerman, M., (2007). Investigative negotiation: Harvard Business Review, 85(9), 73-78.

Nakasako, S. I. (2016). Essential Concepts on Negotiation.

Patel, B. N., & Rubin, G. D. (2016). Deal or no deal? Negotiation 101. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 13(6), 756-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2016.03.029

Richards, J., Guerrero, V., & Fischbach, S. (2020). Negotiation competence: Improving student negotiation self-efficacy. Journal of Education for Business, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2020.1715330

Väyrynen, T. (2018). Culture and international conflict resolution: A critical analysis of the work of John Burton. Manchester University Press.