Access the “Allied Health Community” media and select “Scenarios” to access the scenarios for this course. Review the instructions and legend information. Read the Hospital Scenario for this course and complete the following assignment:
a 500-750 words that addresses the following:
- Evaluate the management styles and identify the positive and negatives of each manager’s characteristics.
- Identify what transactional and transformational leadership theories are present.
- Provide an example of how one leader mentioned in the case study could adapt the servant leadership model into practice, and how this change could have an impact on a quality improvement department within health care.
In order to improve e ciency in the quality improvement department, a large hospital decided to elim- inate a generalist model of sta ng, and instead created two speci c work groups. The plan was that each work group would focus on speci c projects within the department. The reorganization date would occur in a few months, at the beginning of the new scal year. This plan was announced to all of the sta , and then the teams were announced. The employees had been split evenly between the two managers currently overseeing people in the generalist model of sta ng. It was also explained that project-speci c performances would be measured through the following metrics: e ciency outcomes, survey results, and resource expenditures.
The managers, Rachel and Tomas, each met with their new teams to outline their vision:
Rachel, ambitions to be leading the top performing team, explained that she would be organizing the team based upon demonstration of leadership and desire to succeed. The individuals who displayed this behavior would be rewarded with one of the four lead positions. Questions quickly arose from the group as to how “leadership and desire to succeed” would be identi ed, and how individuals overall would be chosen. Rachel responded by saying she would personally choose the individuals; they would be de- termined as she closely watched individual performance and determined whether or not people were “doing their best work.”
After work, members of the new team informally gathered to discuss the changes. Several of the em- ployees who had worked with Rachel before described situations they witnessed on her past teams. They concluded that she typically had “favorites” and these were the people who advanced. From their experience, they believed becoming a “favorite” meant taking on extra tasks and extra hours. A mem- ber newer to the company was surprised by the information. Rachel had just approached him in private and told him that she had heard good things about his performance; she intimated that he would be a perfect t for the lead position—but that those in the lead positions needed to take on a tremendous amount of work because the lead positions were especially vital to the success of the company.
Tomas introduced the initial meeting to his new team as a “strategy meeting” and scheduled a full day for the team to meet. At the beginning of the meeting, Tomas described the new team’s organization as a group of “interdependent people working toward a common goal,” and reported that there would be
no lead positions. Tomas led the group through an activity to identify their strengths, weaknesses, and special skills. Tomas then led the group through an extensive team-building activity that was designed to demonstrate the importance of interdependency. At the end of the meeting, Tomas concluded with a conversation on accountability plans and shared vision.
As people left to go home, they discussed the meeting. There were mixed feelings about the meeting and the team’s direction. Some were enthused by the vision; but frustrated because little was revealed about the day-to-day expectations or actual job duties. Others felt that the activities they had to do were ” u ” and that a full day had been a waste. A couple of these individuals were especially disappointed that there were no lead positions to work toward.