Vision, Mission, and Values
Dispute resolution techniques aim at developing solutions to existing conflicts that address the needs of conflicting parties. Solutions can be challenging to come to, especially when the conflicting parties have diverging interests, such as in the case of Dr. Jones and the Medical Center in Coville Provincial Town. For conflict resolution to be effective, the parties must understand the mission, vision, and values associated with the intended dispute resolution process. In the case study, for instance, the vision of the dispute resolution process would be to identify the most optimum solution that would satisfy Dr. Jones as well as the Center. Any efforts made in dispute resolution would therefore have the interests of both parties to the conflict at the core and would be aimed at realizing successful negotiation.
The mission of the negotiation process would be to identify common ground in medical practice that would suit the interests of the Center as well as those of Dr. Jones without raising the need for further litigation processes, such as a court suit. however, both parties need to compromise on their demands to achieve this mission. The values to be reflected during the negotiation process would be similar to those of conventional medical practice, including ethical values, such as beneficence and non-maleficence, and other values related to patient-centered care, such as compassion, empathy, and patience. The doctor and the hospital have to exhibit these values in their negotiation and in the interests, they are willing to pursue to deliver consistent value-based, patient-centered care in spite of their differences. Each of the parties should look beyond their individual interests and consider the implications of their decisions on patients’ health rather than on their own finances. The best way to achieve this would be to negotiate with the objective of ensuring consistent pediatric service delivery within the town regardless of whether the services are delivered at the Centre or independently by Dr. Jones.
Operationalizing the Strategic Plan
Interested Parties and their Relationships
For this case, the disputing parties are Dr. Jones and the Medical Centre. The two parties are in disagreement regarding the continued operation of Dr. Jones, who has been faced with some issues, mostly pertaining to his family’s dissolution. According to the Medical Centre, Dr. Jones signed a contract to deliver services to the facility over 5 years. However, the contract has only been partially executed and has approximately 2.5 years still remaining. As the only pediatrician at the Centre, Dr. Jones has been earning the hospital more than 600,000 per annum through direct service delivery and referrals by other doctors. Besides acting as the hospital’s pediatrician, Dr. Jones also engages in general practice in the hospital, which is a source of additional income to the facility.
The Centre’s current concern, which drives its interests in the negotiation, is that Dr. Jones’s family problems have necessitated divorce proceedings, and since the Dr. and his wife are both practitioners at the hospital, the work environment has become unfriendly. Consequently, several members of staff have suggested that Dr. Jones should leave. The Centre is however concerned about losing Dr. Jones’ practice because replacing him may be difficult and he may be a source of competition in case he sets up within the town. The Centre’s main interest is therefore to find a solution that will create a balance between the demands made by Dr. Jones and those stipulated in the contract. For the Centre, such a solution would necessitate an agreement with Dr. Jones on an operational structure, based on which the doctor would compensate the hospital in case he sets up practice in the town within two years from his termination.
Dr. Jones is bound by the Centre’s contract to not practice in the town within a period of two years from the termination of his contract with the hospital, yet he is interested in setting up practice in Coville town without any hindrance from the Centre or restriction based on the termination of his contract. He does not intend to move to another town since his children attend school in Coville and he would want to see them, and he is unwilling to compensate the Medical Centre. in the past, he indicated the intention to pursue other alternative approaches if the Centre insists on their terms, which may include going to court.
In resolving the dispute between Dr. Jones and the Centre, it will be imperative to evaluate various issues in communication and come to an agreement regarding the best way forward. First, it would be necessary to consider the relationship between Dr. Jones and the Centre. In case Dr. Jones is experiencing issues because of his family situation, the case would be treated as an outlier. Such treatment would be warranted because contract termination, in such a case, cannot be attributed solely to reasons caused by Dr. Jones. As a good employer, the Center should be focused on promoting the well-being of its employees by providing the necessary support programs. Secondly, there would be a need to explore the relationship between the parties in relation to the case context by determining the work-related issues that the doctor has exhibited, which would contribute to his termination.
So far, the strain on work relationships due to the dispute between the doctor and his wife is the only rationale for his termination. Therefore, further communications around his workplace relationships and productivity need to be held prior to concluding on the need for termination. Additionally, emotions and reason should be balanced in the communications about termination and dispute resolution. For instance, it would be unfair to terminate the doctor’s contract based on his family issues and then refuse to allow him to practice independently within the town.
The easiest option would be to offer to provide psychological support services for Dr. Jones and maybe his wife to allow them to cope better with the separation, rather than using their impending divorce as a rationale for termination. The Centre would then negotiate with the doctor to take some time off, undergo therapy, and continue to provide services at the Centre. In this way, both Dr. Jones and the Centre would benefit through continued earning and prolonged profitability to the contract conclusion, respectively.
In case the proposed solution does not work, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) would be to allow Dr. Jones to practice independently within Coville town. This would be based on the argument that Dr. Jones has made no mistake within the scope of his roles to warrant contract termination and did not initiate the contract termination process. Terminating his contract in itself, therefore, would be unethical, and would be worsened by the decision to deny him an opportunity to practice independently. In such a case, he would be justified to pursue legal redress on account of unreasonable restriction of practice.