A method of teaching negotiating skill.

Can physicians and managers both enjoy successful contracts? Is it necessary for one party to win and the other party to lose? If both parties could win, or at at least have a perception that they won, perhaps the unpleasant nature of contracting and negotiation could be mitigated. Can inexperienced negotiators learn negotiating skills? The focus of this study is to attempt to answer formally the above questions. An experiment was conducted to investigate the effects of analytical information on the quality and efficiency of individual decisions during negotiations. The experiment required M.H.A. and medical students to agree in a medical services contract between a health maintenance organization and a group of physicians. A computer-based bargaining choice model was developed to elicit each subject's preferences and value trade-offs. Selected subjects used the analytical information when preparing for the contract negotiation. Significantly higher levels in quality of individual negotiator decisions and efficiency were observed when analytical information was used prior to negotiating. Also, significantly higher levels of joint quality and success in negotiation were observed in subjects using analytical information. The results provide strong support for developing models of individual negotiator choice behavior for use in actual health care negotiation and the education of health care administrators and physicians.