{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02711606690319311, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016218955904713634, 'mean_word_length': 5.502471169686985, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Negotiating with antisocial clients.

Despite widespread pessimism about the responsiveness of such individuals toward traditional therapeutic approaches (Hare, 1999), individuals with this disability have been noted to respond positively to sanctions and incentives when presented in a negotiation approach that offers them choice and alternatives in a manner that recognizes their interests and capabilities (Millon, 1999; "Antisocial Personality-II," 2001). It would seem therefore that a negotiation approach might offer a viable alternative when more conventional treatment approaches antagonize or increase the resistance of such clients. NEGOTIATION AS EXCHANGE Negotiation can be defined as a bargaining interaction characterized by the exchange of social resources between two or more people to gain a mutual adjustment beneficial to all parties involved (Fisher & Brown, 1989; Robbins & Decenzo, 2001). Negotiation approaches to helping have been described in numerous contexts, from couple counseling (McKay, Fanning, & Paleg, 1994) to group therapy (Hug, 2004). In general, this conception assumes that both the practitioner and the client possess valuable resources that can assist each other in the attainment of their respective goals. The phrase social resources refers to commodities or qualities that are "perceived by individuals as necessary for their well-being" (Murdach, 1987, p. 503).These resources can include such valued qualities as cooperation, approval, and support as well as more tangible items such as financial assistance, legal help, and assistance with housing and transportation resources. It should be noted that exchange-based approaches in helping relationships are behavioristic in orientation and not fundamentally insight oriented. Although these types of approaches have been criticized as superficial (Rogers & Stevens, 1975), more recent research has found such methods to be beneficial with clients whose capabilities for insight are impaired, as is often the case with individuals classified as antisocial (Millon, 1999; Safran & Muran, 2000). NEGOTIATION IN ORGANIZATIONS Because social workers tend to be employed in organizations, it is important to examine negotiation approaches to helping as it occurs within an organizational context. It is especially necessary because people designated as "antisocial" can now be found in varying numbers in all organizational settings (Hare, 1999). In this article, I use suggestions from the field of organizational behavior (Robbins & Decenzo, 2001) and focus on the ways in which two important organizational factors, power and control, shape the structure of negotiation approaches used by helpers in organizational settings. Power is here defined as the ability of X to shape the attitudes, behavior, or both of Y according to X'S preferences. Power in this definition is basically a psychological concept that is based on an actor's capacity to convince others of his or her conviction and potency. Control, on the other hand, is defined as the ability of X to determine Y's actual outcomes according to X's preferences (Robbins & Decenzo, 2001). Through these dimensions of power and control, four distinct subtypes of negotiation can be posited that social workers can use when working with antisocial clients in organizational contexts. In the following paragraphs, I briefly review each of these types of negotiation and the ways they relate to the organizational conditions in which they occur. The interaction of these two prominent features of organizational life and the effects thereof on the development of negotiation with antisocial clients is illustrated in Figure 1. Casual Negotiation What I call casual negotiation occurs most often in organizational settings featuring low actual power and control on the part of both the practitioner and the client, such as welfare departments and income maintenance programs (Abramovitz, 2005). …