SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Negotiating”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMed2000

Unfixing the fixed pie: a motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation.

Negotiators tend to believe that own and other's outcomes are diametrically opposed. When such fixed-pie perceptions (FPPs) are not revised during negotiation, integrative agreements are unlikely. It was predicted that accuracy motivation helps negotiators to release their FPPs. In 2 experiments, accuracy motivation was manipulated by (not) holding negotiators accountable for the manner in which they negotiated. Experiment 1 showed that accountability reduced FPPs during face-to-face negotiation and produced more integrative agreements. Experiment 2 corroborated these results: Accountable negotiators revised their FPPs even when information exchange was experimentally held constant. Experiment 2 also showed that accountability is effective during the encoding of outcome information. Negotiators appear flexible in their reliance on FPPs. which is consistent with a motivated information-processing model of negotiation.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Negotiation.

The first part of this paper traces a short history of the psychological study of negotiation. Although negotiation was an active research topic within social psychology in the 1960s and 1970s, in the 1980s, the behavioral decision perspective dominated. The 1990s has witnessed a rebirth of social factors in the psychological study of negotiation, including social relationships, egocentrism, motivated illusions, and emotion. The second part of this paper reviews five emerging research areas, each of which provides useful insight into how negotiators subjectively understand the negotiation: (a) mental models in negotiation; (b) how concerns of ethics, fairness, and values define the rules of the game being played; (c) how the selection of a communication medium impacts the way the game is played; (d) how cross-cultural issues in perception and behavior affect the negotiation game; and (e) how negotiators organize and simplify their understandings of the negotiation game when more than two actors are involved.

Collective Bargaining↗

PubMed2001

Six habits of merely effective negotiators.

Most executives know the basics of negotiation; some are spectacularly adept. Yet even experienced negotiators routinely leave money on the table, end up in deadlock, damage relationships, or allow conflicts to spiral. They fall prey to common mistakes that keep them from solving the right negotiation problem. In any negotiation, each side ultimately chooses between two options: accepting a deal or taking its best no-deal option--that is, the course of action if a deal were not possible. As a negotiator, you seek to advance your interests by persuading the other side to say yes to a proposal that meets your interests better than your best no-deal option. Because the other side will say yes only to a proposal that meets its own interests better than its best no-deal option, you must understand and shape your counterpart's decision so that it chooses in its own interest what you want. Far from being exercises in manipulation, understanding your counterpart's interests and shaping the decision so that the other side agrees to a proposal for its own reasons are the keys to jointly creating and claiming sustainable value from a negotiation. In this article, James Sebenius compares good negotiating practice with bad, providing examples from the business world and insights from 50 years of research and analysis on negotiation. The author describes six common mistakes that result in merely effective negotiation: neglecting your counterpart's problem, letting price bulldoze other interests, letting positions drive out interests, searching too hard for common ground, neglecting no-deal alternatives, and failing to correct for skewed vision.

Administrative Personnel↗

PubMed2003

3-D negotiation. Playing the whole game.

What stands between you and the yes you want? According to negotiation experts David Lax and James Sebenius, executives face obstacles in three common and complementary dimensions. The first dimension is tactics, or interactions at the bargaining table. The second is deal design, or the ability to draw up a deal at the table that creates lasting value. And the third is setup, which includes the structure of the negotiation itself. Each dimension is crucial in the bargaining process, but most executives fixate on only the first two: 1-D negotiators focus on improving their interpersonal skills at the negotiating table--courting their clients, using culturally sensitive language, and so on. 2-D negotiators focus on diagnosing underlying sources of value in a deal and then recrafting the terms to satisfy all parties. In this article, the authors explore the often-neglected third dimension. Instead of just playing the game at the bargaining table, 3-D negotiators reshape the scope and sequence of the game itself to achieve the desired outcome. They scan widely to identify elements outside of the deal on the table that might create a more favorable structure for it. They map backward from their ideal resolution to the current setup of the deal and carefully choose which players to approach and when. And they manage and frame the flow of information among the parties involved to improve their odds of getting to yes. Lax and Sebenius describe the tactics 3-D negotiators use--such as bringing new, previously unconsidered players into a negotiation--and cite examples from business and foreign affairs. Negotiators need to act in all three dimensions, the authors argue, to create and claim value for the long term.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed1999

Long and Short Routes to Success in Electronically Mediated Negotiations: Group Affiliations and Good Vibrations.

To understand why e-mail negotiations break down, we investigated two distinct elements of negotiators' relationships with each other: shared membership in a social group and mutual self-disclosure. In an experiment, some participants negotiated with a member of an outgroup (a student at a competitor university), whereas others negotiated with a member of an ingroup (a student at the same university). In addition, some negotiators exchanged personal information with their counterparts, whereas others did not. When neither common ingroup status nor a personalized relationship existed between negotiators, negotiations were more likely to end in impasse. These results are attributable to the positive influence of mutual self-disclosure and common group membership on negotiation processes and rapport between negotiators. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2003

[Location and negotiation of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate prevalence, location, negotiation and the effect of operating microscope (OM) in the treatment of the second mesiobuccal canal (MB2) in maxillary molars. METHODS: 113 maxillary molars were studied. The crowns of the teeth were removed 1 mm above the chamber bottom for searching MB2 canal. Initially location and negotiation of MB2 canal were attempted without OM. Teeth in which MB2 canal were not located or negotiated were further explored under OM. Canal orifices including MB orifice, MB2 orifice and palatal orifice were filled by red gutta-percha cones, then the teeth were scanned by scanner. The images were analyzed by Image-Proplus 4.0 software to measure the relationship between MB2 canal and other canals. RESULTS: The MB-MB2 distance is (1.47 +/- 0.54) mm, MB-P distance is (5.77 +/- 0.66) mm, the vertical distance from MB2 to MB-P line is (0.53 +/- 0.28) mm, the angle between MB-P line and MB-MB2 line is 23.07 degrees +/- 13.08 degrees. MB2 orifices were located in 70 teeth (61.9%) and negotiated in 53 teeth (46.9%) without OM. With OM, additional MB2 orifices were located in other 6 teeth, 4 were negotiated; and 2 were negotiated in which MB2 canal were not negotiated without OM. CONCLUSIONS: MB2 canal can be located in 67.3% and negotiated in 52.2% of maxillary molars. Ability to locate and negotiate MB2 canal is facilitated by OM. The MB2 canal was located less than 1 mm mesially to the MB-P line and 2 mm palatally from the MB orifice.

Dental Pulp Cavity↗

PubMed2003

Negotiation skills for physicians.

As stakeholders vie for increasingly limited resources in health care, physicians would be well advised to hone their skills of negotiation. Negotiation is defined as a strategy to resolve a divergence of interests, be they real or perceived, where common interests also exist. Negotiation requires effective communication of goals, needs, and wants. The "basic needs" model of negotiation is best suited to the current health care environment. In this model, negotiator must to be able to identify their needs in the negotiation, establish their best alternative to a negotiated agreement, and identify their strategies and tactics for the negotiation.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

PubMed1994

Condom use negotiation among sex workers in Singapore: findings from qualitative research.

Following an earlier study of 806 sex workers in Singapore in which they were found to succeed only half the time in getting clients to use condoms, a qualitative investigation was conducted on 40 sex workers to explore their perceived barriers and approaches in negotiating condom use with clients. Five different patterns of condom use were identified: successful, unsuccessful, misinformed, passive and uninterested. The successful negotiators used several practical approaches to secure clients' compliance. Unsuccessful negotiators experienced problems such as inability to resist clients' pressure or respond to their queries. The misinformed group believed that regular clients were safe. The passive group did not negotiate condom use due to their perceptions of lack of support from peers and brothel keepers, and the uninterested group was apathetic with fatalistic perceptions of AIDS. The in-depth interviews with successful negotiators provided relevant, specific and practical information which could be disseminated to their peers to develop their negotiation skills. This qualitative study also provided useful insights on condom use negotiation and highlighted the need for comprehensive interventions which should not only aim at developing sex workers' negotiation skills but also at gathering support from brothel keepers to facilitate behaviour change, and public education directed at clients to increase condom use.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Physicians and joint negotiations.

This position paper of the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine addresses public policy issues related to physicians' joining to negotiate issues affecting patient care and the working environment in which patient services are provided. It seeks to identify an appropriate way for physicians to negotiate jointly with health care plans while maintaining professionalism and keeping the interests of patients paramount. It proposes that physicians in nonintegrated private practices should be able to meet and communicate among themselves for the purpose of negotiating primarily with health care plans about specific issues that affect quality and access. However, the College opposes strikes or any joint action by physicians that would deny or limit services to patients or result in price-fixing or other anticompetitive behavior. The College states that employed physicians should continue to have negotiating rights. It maintains, despite a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board, that physicians in residency training are protected by accreditation requirements for programs of graduate medical education, and education content should not be subject to negotiations [corrected]. Physicians in residency training are protected by accreditation requirements for programs of graduate medical education, and educational content should not be subject to negotiations. The College also calls for determination of negotiating units for physicians but recommends that nonphysician providers not be included in the same units as physicians. Membership in an organization that negotiates for physicians should be voluntary, and conflict-resolution mechanisms must be available for resolving impasses.

Education, Medical, Graduate↗

PubMed2002

Disconnecting outcomes and evaluations: the role of negotiator focus.

Three experiments explored the role of negotiator focus in disconnecting negotiated outcomes and evaluations. Negotiators who focused on their target prices, the ideal outcome they could obtain, achieved objectively superior outcomes compared with negotiators who focused on their lower bound (e.g., reservation price). Those negotiators who focused on their targets, however, were less satisfied with their objectively superior outcomes. In the final experiment, when negotiators were reminded of their lower bound after the negotiation, the satisfaction of those negotiators who had focused on their target prices was increased, with outcomes and evaluations becoming connected rather than disconnected. The possible negative effects of setting high goals and the temporal dimensions of the disconnection and reconnection between outcomes and evaluations are discussed.

Attitude↗

PubMed1997

Groups and Solos in Context: The Effects of Accountability on Team Negotiation.

This study examines whether and how accountability to constituents affects the cognitions, performance, and outcomes of team and solo negotiators. Previous findings for solos were replicated here: solo negotiators respond competitively when they are accountable to constituents. For teams, however, accountability pressures were distributed across the members resulting in each team member experiencing little responsibility for outcomes. As a consequence, teams did not respond to accountability pressures by behaving contentiously as solos did. Analysis of negotiators' perceptions of advantage reveals that solos who negotiate under conditions of high accountability consider themselves to be at a disadvantage in the negotiation even before the negotiation begins. These perceptions may underlie the accountability/competitive relation that characterizes solo negotiation. Implications for negotiation research as well as the study of groups in organizations are discussed. Copyright 1997 Academic Press.

Journal Article↗

PubMed2001

Operating microscope improves negotiation of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars.

This in vitro study investigated the prevalence, location, and pathway of the second mesiobuccal canal (MB-2) in 45 first and second maxillary molars using the operating microscope (OM). Initially location and negotiation of MB-2 were attempted without magnification. Teeth in which MB-2 was not located or could not be negotiated were further explored under OM. Roots where MB-2 could not be negotiated even with OM were cross-sectioned and inspected microscopically. Morphometric measurements were performed to map the location of MB-2. Without magnification an apparent MB-2 orifice was located in 42 teeth and the canal negotiated in 31 (69%). With OM one additional apparent MB-2 orifice was located, and five previously identified canals were negotiated (total 80%). The root cross-sections confirmed the absence of MB-2 in all nine teeth where it was not negotiated. Location of MB-2 varied randomly. In conclusion MB-2 can be negotiated in 80% of maxillary molars, although an orifice is apparent in 96% of the teeth. Ability to negotiate MB-2 is facilitated by OM.

Dental Pulp Cavity↗

PubMed1993

The use of mental health professional consultants to police hostage negotiation teams.

Three hundred law enforcement agencies in the United States that employ a negotiator in hostage incidents responded to a survey regarding the use of mental health professionals as consultants to the negotiation team. Thirty-nine percent of the agencies with a negotiator use a mental health professional consultant to the negotiation team. Police agencies that use a mental health professional as a consultant on negotiation techniques reported more hostage incidents ending by negotiated surrender and fewer hostage incidents ending by tactical team assault and arrest of the perpetrator. Also, police agencies that use a mental health professional as a consultant on the assessment of the perpetrator reported fewer hostage incidents resulting in the serious injury or death of a hostage. Although these results are only correlational, they raise the possibility that the use of mental health professionals as consultants to police hostage negotiation teams may decrease the risk of hostage injury and death.

Chi-Square Distribution↗

PubMed2001

Negotiation behavior when cultures collide: the United States and Japan.

This study compared the negotiation behaviors of Japanese and U.S. managers in intra- and intercultural settings. Transcripts from an integrative bargaining task were coded and analyzed with logistic and linear regression. U.S. negotiators exchanged information directly and avoided influence when negotiating intra- and interculturally. Japanese negotiators exchanged information indirectly and used influence when negotiating intraculturally but adapted their behaviors when negotiating interculturally. Culturally normative negotiation behaviors partially account for the lower joint gains generated by intercultural, relative to intracultural, dyads. The behavioral data inform motivational and skill-based explanations for elusive joint gains when cultures clash.

Adult↗

PubMed2005

Constraints and triggers: situational mechanics of gender in negotiation.

The authors propose 2 categories of situational moderators of gender in negotiation: situational ambiguity and gender triggers. Reducing the degree of situational ambiguity constrains the influence of gender on negotiation. Gender triggers prompt divergent behavioral responses as a function of gender. Field and lab studies (1 and 2) demonstrated that decreased ambiguity in the economic structure of a negotiation (structural ambiguity) reduces gender effects on negotiation performance. Study 3 showed that representation role (negotiating for self or other) functions as a gender trigger by producing a greater effect on female than male negotiation performance. Study 4 showed that decreased structural ambiguity constrains gender effects of representation role, suggesting that situational ambiguity and gender triggers work in interaction to moderate gender effects on negotiation performance.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement.

The authors tested a motivated information-processing model of negotiation: To reach high joint outcomes, negotiators need a deep understanding of the task, which requires them to exchange information and to process new information systematically. All this depends on social motivation, epistemic motivation (EM), and their interaction. Indeed, when EM (manipulated by holding negotiators process accountability or not) was high rather than low and prosocial rather than proself, negotiators recall more cooperative than competitive tactics (Experiment 1), had more trust, and reached higher joint outcomes (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 showed that under high EM, negotiators who received cooperative, rather than competitive, tactics reached higher joint outcomes because they engaged in more problem solving. Under low EM, negotiators made more concessions and reached low joint outcomes. Implications for negotiation theory and for future work in this area are discussed.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed1998

Negotiating strategies for capitation.

The appropriate strategy to employ in contract negotiations will vary, depending on a number of important factors. These include the relative size and power of the network, the conditions of the local market, the strength of the managed-care payer in the market, and a host of other issues. The negotiating strategy ultimately adopted will be in accordance with the organizations overall preference, style, and needs. In approaching any contract negotiation, two key points should be kept in mind. First, networks must recognize they can become more prepared and empowered for contract negotiations through the acquisition of additional information. Second, form contracts can be changed; nothing is set in stone. Despite the frequent statements of payer organizations that the form cannot be modified to meet the provider's unique desires and needs, in most cases a contract can be modified in one way or another to meet the parties' mutual needs and desires. Everything is negotiable: Any party involved in such negotiations should be positive, avoiding conflict; use a problem-solving approach; agree whenever possible--strive to become "we"; acknowledge the payer's interest and position, expressing a desire to compromise; and acknowledge the authority and ability of the assigned negotiator. Once the managed-care contract is consummated, the network should attempt to ensure that the parties get maximum value from the agreement. One step to achieving such a desired end is to identify a leader who will be responsible for overseeing contract implementation and performance and responsible for knowing the requirements of the agreement inside out and for focusing on all other requirements of the managed-care program.

Capitation Fee↗

PubMed2005

Setting and negotiating targets in people with Type 2 diabetes in primary care: a cross sectional survey.

AIMS: To investigate the provision of diabetes care, the frequency of practices setting targets for their diabetic population, the targets set and the frequency of targets being negotiated with people with diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using a survey of 123 general practices within four Primary Care Trusts in Nottingham UK. RESULTS: Eighty per-cent (99) of practices responded. Of these, 88 and 89%, respectively, had set glycosolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and blood pressure targets for people with Type 2 diabetes. Twenty-five per-cent (24) of practices reported negotiating targets with almost all people with Type 2 diabetes for HbA1c and 31% (30) for blood pressure. In 46% (45) of practices, the annual diabetic review for some or all of the people with Type 2 diabetes was carried out by the practice nurse alone. In these practices, targets were negotiated with a smaller proportion of people than those where the doctor was involved in the annual review for both blood pressure [43 vs. 64% negotiated blood pressure targets with almost all or many people odds ratio (OR) 0.42 (95% CI 0.19, 0.96), P = 0.04] and HbA1c [39 vs. 60% negotiated HbA1c targets with almost all or many people, OR 0.41 (95% CI 0.18, 0.94), P = 0.03]. CONCLUSIONS: Negotiating targets with people with Type 2 diabetes does not routinely occur in primary care. Targets are negotiated less often in practices where nurses undertake reviews alone and further work is needed to explore the reasons for this.

Blood Glucose↗