Hospital Budget Cuts

I was Dr. Baxter on a panel of leaders who had to decide how to cut 3.5 million dollars out of the hospital budget in ordert to pay for a new heart surgeon to come join our staff - in which the joining process would turn our hospital into a prestigious benchmark worthy of national recognition. I was the head of the Medical Staff and Supplies. Laura was head of the Housekeeping Staff. Nicola and Amy were in charge of the Nursing Staff. Dawn was our "Financial Consultant".

I was nervous going into this observation, because we were all going into it with the mindset that our department should give up the least ... and my department had the most feasable options! How was I going to convince Nurses to take paycuts and the hospital to fire housekeeping, when all we had to do was come up with a better system for preventing supply loss?? To me, I came in as "the bad guy" again just based on that. But, then it worked as I began to think of argument after argument to present. I knew that as long I was assertive and produced arguments that could at least pass in logic or theory, then I had a chance. Plus, I was just supposed to be a bitter managerial type (due to the fact that I was not "in charge" of the new doctor) who also had a tinge of sympathy for the Nurses and Housekeeping and what they were going through. So, all I could rely on was presenting workable theories that benifited myself. I went into the negotiation (according to my instructions) trying to not have my department touched at all by cuts, but at worst, accepting the "low" cuts while others could pick up the rest of the cuts.

Then, the solution came (or so I thought) about 10 minutes in. Dawn labled off her 3 top prospects of solutions for the problem. I'm not sure if she was supposed to, because that gave me ALOT of leverage. Luckily, the one that hurt me was 3rd in priority. The other two worked perfect (as I was thinking selfishly). At that point, while still being diplomatic, I made a point to let the group know that they better go along with my kindness ... because I had the TRUMP card. All I had to do was break the concensus, and things worked out for me. I offered to give a "low" cut to my budget, but could not get the other groups to do the same ... mainly because of a one sentence stipulation in the document.

We came to a stalemate, only to find out that Dawn was hiding the simple solution - which was a million dollar loan paired with my "low" cut and a nurses "low" cut. In reality, that option made alot of sence. But, since that knowledge was witheld, I still feel like I did pretty good in this negotiation ... even though I stumbled over my words a little bit at times while speaking. I should have asked Dawn alot more questions though so we could have come to a concensus.

The War Game

The War Game was a game in which each team had 20 playing cards - that they could place in a armed position or unarmed position. I came up with my teams strategy. This included turning ALL cards to armed and then call for battle by the 3rd or 4th turn so that we could not lose. At very worst we would tie, but if the opposing team left any unarmed during their turns ... we would win. I came up with this strategy because I was under the impression that for us to "win", we were to "beat" the other team. However, it turned out that my definition of winning was wrong, and my team figured this out by the 3rd round. At that point, I went outside to negotiate with Nicola and I told her that the game's point was for both teams to unarm so we could then all get money from the bank after the 7th turn. I told her that we promised to not attack at all, if her and Dawn would promise the same thing. That way, we could all unarm and get more money. However, I guess they thought I was bluffing. We began to unarm while they still armed ... and then they attacked - which was a violation of our treaty. I'm not sure how I could have been more convincing that we were telling the truth when we created that reaty for us and them.

I still ate a good Quizno's sandwhich with the money I gained from the war though. :)

Fish Pond Lane

This negotiation was different in that most of it took place over the internet. I can't say that I liked it more, as I do better in face to face situations. It was also a bit awkward working as a team. However, I can see two advantages working this way. First, you have more time to think about how you will respond to certain propositions instead of being put directly on the spot. Second, you can withold your emotional status (which could also be a disadvantage as Dr. Strange pointed out).

Our groups (Laura and Nicola) & (myslef and Amy) met two times online and one time in person. I was looking to get enough money out of the sale of my house to pay off my mortgage, pay off my business investement, pay off capital gains interest, and pay my sales rep. Therefore, according to my calculations, this had to be a # above $325,000. We ended up selling the house for 330k, so it was a success. To tell the truth, I had no clue what the business was with the bird sanctuary. I thought it might be a turn off to potential customers, so we left it out of our dealings. But, it then turned out to be a major thing that the eventual buyers wanted.

Dirty Stuff

I really enjoyed the "Dirty Stuff" negotiation, even if it was a little intense. For a quick background, I (a factory representative), an environmentalist rep (Amy), a union rep (Laura), and a government agency rep (Nicola) were all trying to find middle ground on issues relating to the dirty stuff chemical that my company was using to produce its goods. We were attempting to hold this meeting by means of a lead facilitator (Dawn). Beforehand, I knew I was going to be seen as the "bad guy" by the environmentalists and the union. So, with that in mind, I decided to first try to kill that image from the very beginning. I attempted to be reassuring that we as a company were not the bad guy, and that we wanted a cleaner, safer environment for both our workers and the community in general. Maybe I was a little too soft. I'm not sure. However, I was firm in my stance that our current working conditions were "safe" according to recent reserach findings. In the end, I did get most of what I wanted. My company stayed open in the city, we got the 1% usage, and we got to choose and evaluate who tested us. I only fell victom to one dirty trick. Even though Amy and I both wanted a cleaning every 24 hours, she suggested every 4 hours. I thought, "Wow, that's harsh". But I decided to use that as a leverage point for other things that I wanted and promised a cleaning every 8 hours ... only to find out that she would have been ok with every 24 hours in real life.