Vendor negotiations

From Clinfowiki
Revision as of 22:06, 23 November 2012 by CORABOSS (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Negotiating with Electronic Health (Medical) Record Vendors At its foundation, negotiation is a tool for acquisition. We can negotiate for an objective as lofty as the greater good and fairness for all; operating with mutual respect and even empathy. Empathy has been described as the ability to experience the needs and wants of the other party, recognize their limitations and hold fast to your ethics with that knowledge. (4) Individuals negotiate to save money, time or get what they want. Some authors have noted the desire for power, rather than material acquisition as an objective. (2,4) In healthcare, individuals and organizations negotiate for information systems, contracts with suppliers, services, influencing others’ behavior or even modifying a relationship. Clinicians negotiate with patients for compliance. Pharmaceutical companies and representatives negotiate for the best price, best product or inclusion in a limited formulary. Underlying all of these negotiations is the business of caring for those who are ill. With that in mind, negotiations in healthcare should reflect empathy, respect and understanding of other’s limitations; whether a patient, colleague or coworker. Regardless of the objective, many authors note the importance of careful planning, respect, high ethics and a larger view of the situation to ensure success. (2,4,5,6)

Styles and Approaches

Emotions can run high at the negotiation table. Approaches range from aggressive, angry and manipulative to passive, friendly and meek. While parties in a negotiation can expect their views to oppose one another to some extent, how those opposing views are displayed will have an impact on the final outcome. It’s important to note that caving in to pressure or accepting manipulation is not considered negotiation. This could cause a breakdown or failure in objectives and goals. A stakeholder approach that concedes quickly with many concessions may have ulterior motives and use false humility, stealth or illusion. In negotiation, those parties that hold the most power do not necessarily win at negotiating. Several authors agree that a ‘power’ approach is often ineffective. (1,2,5) Just as individuals have different backgrounds, ethical boundaries, moral standards and personalities, so will each individual approach negotiating in their own style. While parties may feel it’s important to assert and vocalize their needs, taking the time to listen with mind and habitus can be valuable. There are as many perspectives as there are people at the negotiating table. Only after truly listening can a good negotiator narrow and shape the perspectives without having parties think they are relenting. Each member of the team has their own idea of what piece of the pie (whole) they want or deserve. Price and Cybalski note that how determined each player is for their piece of the whole can and does frame their overall perspective of the other players. (1) On the other hand, those that ‘drive a hard bargain’, approach negotiation with a competitive, elusive, even aggressive approach; fearing that revealing anything more than the minimum may reveal an inherent weakness.ds, ethical boundaries, moral standards and personalities, so will each individual approach negotiating in their own style. This is especially true as globalization brings in many different cultures and nationalities to the negotiating table. Some will hold true to their culture and beliefs regardless of outcome; others are more flexible, allowing for bending and even breaking of their cultural norm to achieve consensus. (6) The lost art of truly listening rather than waiting for an opportunity to speak may reveal similarities not