Radiology Contract Negotiations: It’s Not What You Say, but How You Say It

I have poked more than a bit of fun at radiology social media. One might think a bunch of highly educated, trained professionals sharing a relatively small community would showcase politeness, diplomacy, and good-faith mutual support. Folks with this expectation would often be disappointed.

Nevertheless, by my appraisal, radiology social media offers way more good than bad, and even a lot of the bad stuff is at least entertaining. Prior to this, most rads only got to interact with others in their own groups, and occasionally via professional society meetings or conferences. Now, with zero effort, you can fire off random thoughts or questions for the rad population at large.

Consider the following example from a couple of weeks ago. A rad sought comments regarding his situation of negotiating a new job. Specifically, he and his lawyer had spent nearly a month trying to get some “very reasonable modifications” to an offered contract, but the rad group wasn’t playing ball. He asked whether he should consider their repeated refusals to be a red flag.

As you might imagine, there were a bunch of questions regarding the huge relevance of missing details. What exactly were the “reasonable modifications”? What else was in the contract? What was the applicant bringing to the table? How hungry was the rad group for new people?

Other commenters didn’t need any details to share their viewpoint. Amusingly, the last time I checked, they were about evenly split between “Yes, this is a red flag. Go elsewhere,” and “No, this is how the field is. Groups have uniform contracts to keep everyone on the same footing.”

I offered my two cents. Yes, more details would be necessary to decide reasonability vs. red flag status. However, for me , the most important deets may not involve what was actually in the contract, but rather how the parties involved were talking about the contract.

In other words, while contracts hinge on precisely what’s said (sometimes right down to the choice of words), the actual negotiations are a different story. It’s not what you say, but how you say it.

As I commented to the social media thread, a very important aspect of the interaction would be how the rad group is saying no. If they are willing to explain why they won’t budge on this or that, why they think the applicant shouldn’t be too focused on these items, etc, it’s a lot more encouraging than just stonewalling and acting like they don’t care if the applicant walks away.

I regard such negotiations as an invaluable glimpse into how the rad group (or whoever else is on the other side of the table) will probably act once you are bound to them by a contract. Prior to this, it is a courtship: Everybody wants to make themselves look as good as possible, maybe even to the point of deceit. It is like using a dating app. They might post pictures from when they looked better than they do now, claim better jobs/prospects than they really do, etc.

When recruitment has landed an applicant, flowery promises and vague implications have to give way to concrete details. Those disparities have to be reconciled. If either party said something that turns out to be less than truthful, they have got some explaining to do. An unsatisfactory explanation or a complete refusal to offer one is indeed a red flag. If they’re willing to be caught in a lie to you now and not even act embarrassed about it, just imagine what they will try to pull once you are stuck together by a contract that might require legal action to disentangle.

On the other hand, if there are genuine efforts to reconcile differences between recruitment talk and contractual brass tacks, it is a good sign. You are seeing the “personality” of the group, or at least its decision-makers as a flexible, “let’s make things work for everyone” kind of entity. It also underscores that the group values what they see in you and genuinely wants you to be there rather than the next warm body who comes in the door and doesn’t ask the questions you did.

My comment in the thread also mentioned the other side of the coin. How are the applicant’s inquiries are coming across to the prospective employer. Is the job applicant explaining his or her requests and why they are reasonable? If the applicant gets pushback, does he or she showcase ways how he or she is willing to bend, or is just making demands?

Consider the following example of the latter (which focuses on money, but I emphasize that these issues are far from exclusive to financial stuff). Suppose the group offers salary X. The applicant’s “reasonable modification” is to ask for X + Y. The group responds that, “Sorry, everybody starts at X.”

Perhaps the applicant considers it a deal killer and goes elsewhere even though he or she liked everything else about the job. In an alternate scenario, maybe the applicant is irritated by it but continues to pursue the gig. Maybe it sours the applicant’s attitude toward the group a bit or maybe the way he or she asked (or reacted to the refusal) makes the group like the applicant less.

Instead, what if the applicant produces a couple of spreadsheets from the last job, showing how his or her productivity and accuracy are in the 90^th percentile?

The applicant respectfully explains that he or she is not just demanding bigger numbers, the applicant has reason to believe he or she merits more. The applicant sees how the group replies. Does the rad group remain stony, or do they seem to be listening?

Perhaps the applicant follows up with the following proposal: Let’s start me at X for the first half-year and you track my performance. If I prove to you that it is better than you expected for someone accepting this contract, we establish that Y is a productivity bonus rather than part of my salary. For your flexibility, let’s drop Y by 10 percent.

Not only is the applicant showing a willingness to fit into the group’s paradigm, he or she is demonstrating flexibility and a capability to problem solve. If the group doesn’t appreciate that, maybe he or she goes on to find another team that does. At the very least, the applicant has given the group a couple more chances to show that they are capable of give and take.