Choosing to play 'win-lose' in negotiation and how it applies to #budget2014

Greetings all,

As promised, here is another key learning from my WMA caring physicians of the world conference at INSEAD this month.

During a very busy timetable we immersed ourselves in understanding negotiation skills and multi party coalitions. The same day, I watched the Commission of Audit report and discussions fill twitter feeds. I could see what was happening, the Federal Government’s strategy behind #budget2014 was clearly win-lose negotiation tactics, where the tool of choice is power not communication.

When a party or individual chooses to play win lose, they use their power to influence and win. They need to be very aware of the risk and believe the reward will be great enough to set off the risks. Win lose negotiations fall down when such parties overestimate reward and underestimate resistance.

So what does this mean in the context of the last few days? Well, choosing to deliver a budget that is harsh, hits the most vulnerable that a society should protect, doesn't contain a lot of information about how these measures could even be implemented, and then states that it will help Australia out of a perceived economic mess, may be overestimating reward.

I don't see reward when it comes to the $7.00 copayment. I have spoken to a patient who takes warfarin, who told me that if the copayment for pathology services go through, they will take their chances rather than have twice weekly blood tests. 

As a psychiatrist, I may no longer be able to prescribe lithium as often, a fantastic medication for bipolar disorders, as lithium monitoring is crucial with weekly blood tests needed to avoid kidney and thyroid disturbance. The ridiculous aside to this is that lithium is much cheaper than newer atypical agents and more cost effective for government. But, if my patient doesn't return, doesn't have regular monitoring, and develops renal dysfunction, they will then be knocking on the bulging doors of the emergency department. For the sake of making a GP or pathology centre claim $7.00 from a patient, because, after all, they have lost $5.00 per consult, costs and burden of disease will only but rise.

What will we see playing out in the next few days? Parties that choose win-lose and underestimate resistance will feel they have won for a little while until key stake holders form coalitions and lobby to block changes. Key stakeholders that have been shut out of any discussion about this most important budget, and all important patient groups will lobby via all channels available. Let's see what win-lose really looks like in a few weeks, and at the next election.

Then, a word of advice for all, using 'win-win' in negotiation requires communication. How about Government communicate with RACGP, GPRA, AMA,  and  include doctors rather than just rule them, or reduce them to workers of another branch of the ATO.

Thoughts?

Helen