Presentation on theme: "Bargaining Styles and Successful Negotiation Alan K. David, MD Professor and Chair, Family Medicine, MCW Craig Porter, MD Professor, Pediatrics, MCW."— Presentation transcript:
Bargaining Styles and Successful Negotiation Alan K. David, MD Professor and Chair, Family Medicine, MCW Craig Porter, MD Professor, Pediatrics, MCW
Objectives 1.Attendees will assess their own bargaining style tendencies using the TKI Conflict Mode Instrument 2.Attendees will gain insight into personal traits that influence conflict management 3.Attendees will learn successful ways to better understand and manage conflict increasing its potential as a positive force for collaboration. 2
Timeline for Workshop 1200-1210: Introduction Goals/Objectives Schedule Reactions to Conflict 1210-1225: Bargaining Style Assessments Take and Score BSA – TKI Conflict Made Instrument 1225-1235: 5 Conflict Management Styles: Competencies, Collaborating, Compromising, Accommodating, Avoiding 1235-1255: Case Presentation Small Group Role Play 1255-1315: Small Group Reports 1315-1330: Summary 3
Three natural reactions to conflict 1.Striking back 2.Giving in 3.Breaking off
Striking Back ….often leads to escalation/provides the other party with a justification to react in a competing, perhaps unreasonable fashion. May advance your immediate interests, but often damages long-term relationships (win the battle, lose the war). People who play ‘hardball’ are usually good at it. Striking back plays the game the way they like to play it. 5
Giving in …. We are uncomfortable so we give in just to be done with the situation/conversation-we give in because we’re afraid of looking silly, incompetent or unreasonable. Guilt induction – the other person may imply that you are the one who is blocking progress making a solution impossible. After giving in one usually feels “bad” – taken advantage of, angry, foolish, etc. – outcome is also poor. May give one a reputation of weakness that others will try to exploit-giving in to an angry person only encourages angry outburst in the future. Giving in often leads to the other party coming back to ask for yet more concessions. 6
Breaking off Breaking off is often a hasty reaction that we come to regret later-the problem doesn’t go away, even if you are not addressing it directly. May be an appropriate strategy-if you are being taken advantage of. Breaking off reminds the other party of their stake in the relationship and leads to more reasonable behaviors. The costs of breaking off can be high in terms of damaged or shattered friendships, organizational disarray…. 7
Three biases physicians have that can lead to conflict 1. The competitive “us versus us” bias Compared to business leaders in a case study, physicians were less able to see through the competitive surface to find and exploit win/win interests. Physicians seem hesitant to risk cooperating with others, fearing a win/lose result that makes them look bad. Some reported they would rather have everyone lose than risk that any one person gets more than their fair share. 8 G. Richard Shell. Biases Physicians Bring to the Table.
Three biases physicians have that can lead to conflict 2. The autonomy bias Clinical practice and medical training demands that physicians act autonomously, but preference or training for autonomy can work against cooperation necessary in large complex organizations Sense of “what’s in it for me” may overpower thinking about “what’s in it for us” and can lead to conflict. 9
Three biases physicians have that can lead to conflict 3. The hierarchy bias More than some professions, a medical title carries expectations about how those above and below in status will be treated. This hierarchical bias carries over into settings where it isn’t useful, helpful or relevant…. But-physicians can feel lost without the ‘pecking order’ they grew up in and are comfortable with. This is particularly challenging when physicians fee in conflict with someone from a “lower rung.” Rather than trying to get a sense of the other’s perspective, physicians tend to consider them “untrustworthy” “these asst. professors are totally out of line.” 10
History and Validity of TKI Conflict Mode Developed in 1960’s 5 Category scheme for classifying interpersonal conflict handling modes: CompetingAvoiding Collaborating Accommodating Compromising Renormed in 2007: 4,000 men and 4,000 women ages 20-70 (Sample drawn from 57,000 cases 2002-2005) 11 G. Richard Shell. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal April, 2001: 155-174.
TKI ( continued ) Two dimensions: Assertiveness – extent one tries to satisfy one’s own concerns Cooperativeness – extent one tries to satisfy the concerns of another person Competing: assertive and not cooperative Collaborating: assertive and cooperative Compromising: in the middle on both Accommodating: cooperative and not assertive Avoiding: neither assertive nor cooperative 12
Uses of TKI Conflict Mode Leadership development Negotiation training Team building Management/Supervisory training 14
Competitors Characteristics: Negotiate to “win,” rarely back down. Common prejudice: This is the “best” style.
Cautions to Competitors Lack of feedback Reduced learning Low empowerment of others on team Surrounded by “yes-men” (closed off from information)
Collaborators Characteristics: Negotiate to solve problems, have a taste for complexity. Common Prejudice: Not forceful enough to defend a position.
Caution to Collaborators Too much time spend discussing trivial matters (misuse of energy and resources) Trust can be taken advantage of when collaborating behaviors are not reciprocated May be avoiding risk by diffusing responsibility for decision-making
Compromisers Characteristics: Do not like to negotiate, but will do it when it is fast and fair. Common prejudice: “Split the difference” mentality is the most efficient way to bargain.
Cautions to Compromisers Concentration too much on practicalities and tactics and not enough on big picture goals Too much focus on “trading” undermines interpersonal trust and deflects attention from merits of issues discussed
Avoiders Characteristics: Dislike conflict, get anxious about negotiation Common Prejudice: Avoiders should have no role in a negotiation.
Cautions to Avoiders Lack of input results in weak, or no discussions Decisions on important issues made by default Too much focus on “cautious climate” results in ineffective risk aversion Important issues go unresolved
Accommodators Characteristics: Use negotiation to build relationships, resolve conflict by solving other person’s problems. Common Prejudice: Have no point of view.
Cautions to Accommodators Lack of influence Deprives a team of your contributions Tend to be overly deferential to rules and policies
The bargainer’s dilemma: we assume that everyone is like us A few potent combinations: Accommodators versus Competitors Collaborators versus Compromisers Avoiders versus Competitors
Successful Negotiation What do we bring to a negotiation? – Desired outcome(s) – Frame of reference People Problems History Process Outcomes Priorities Stakes
People Primary players – At the table Secondary actors – Those who advise the primary players Tertiary subjects – Unaware Who should be in which role – Players, actors and subjects may disagree with your opinion
Problem What needs to be settled or changed or resolved What is unacceptable What is the cause UNTIL THERE IS AGREEMENT AT THE TABLE, THE NEGOTIATION WILL REACH AN IMPASSE
History Neutral vs. Positive vs. Negative – Each influences the negotiation differently – Negative history often drives a “get even” and “rehash the past” negotiation These attitudes may thwart the process Getting around an impasse – Learn their strategy – Create a diversion – Change the game
Outcomes Know what you want Know what you are willing to give LEARN what the others want LEARN what the others will give Link the giving and the getting – “giving to yes” Establish new currencies if necessary
Priorities Understand the priorities of each side Use the common priorities to reach agreement
Stakes Good, bad and opportunity stakes Share – If I swallow “X”, you get “Y” – If you accept “A”, I will get “B” – Then we each get “Z”
Process The process is driven by your bargaining style which drives your preference in working relationships and determines your behaviors – Do you cooperate? – Can you share? – Must you win? What approaches are the others using? – Can you shift? – Can they?
Conflict Is inevitable – Embracing this concept should force you to form strategic approaches in your organization Accept conflict and recognize its value-a culture shift! – Learn to PROPERLY express the sources of disagreement as a beginning step because there will be NO resolution is the issue is not on the table Recognize the many costs of continuing conflict
Positive Aspects to Conflict Conflict presents us with choices It identifies problems that merit attention Successful organizations must be adept at responding to external problems. Really successful organizations do the same for internal problems Eliminating the negative connotation of conflict diminishes the number of “troublemakers in an organization
References G. Richard Shell. Bargaining Styles and Negotiation: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument in Negotiation Training. Negotiation Journal. April, 2001: 155-174. G. Richard Shell. Bargaining for Advantage: Negotiation Strategies for Reasonable People. New York. Penguin, 1999. CPP. Inc. – www.cpp.com Leonard J Marcus. Renegotiating Health Care: Resolving Conflict to Build Collaboration. San Francisco. Josey- Bass, 1995. 38