The CEO of your health organization comes to your office and states that she is not happy with the efficiency of the new ambulatory care clinic; she does not believe that the new clinic is being effective. Come up with three different measures for efficiency and three different measures of effectiveness that you feel are uniform and applicable to ambulatory care clinics.
Measures of Effectiveness
Mission
According to the Rocket Model of team effectiveness, the first measure of effectiveness that can be a[applied within the context of the ambulatory clinics is an evaluation of the mission of the clinic`s team. The mission in this case refers to a well-articulated objective and purpose which the team has set out to accomplish according to Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy (450).
Norms
According to Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy (451), the second measure of team effectiveness that be used in reviewing the work of the ambulatory clinic under the Rocket Model framework is the evaluation of the norms that bind the team together. In this regard, norms refer to the rules, standards and code of conduct that govern the overall operation of the team and ensures that it is able to achieve its stated goals and objectives (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy 451).
Power
The third measure which can be used in evaluating the effectiveness of the ambulatory clinics` team is the evaluation of the power structure that governs the team under the Rocket Model framework (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy 453). Power refers to structures that have been put in place to ensure that adequate operating decisions are made promptly and quickly so as to ensure that the team operates seamlessly. Power also refers to the availing of the necessary resources that are required by the team members in the execution of their specific job roles and assignments (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy).
Measures of Efficiency
Talent
Under the framework of the Rocket Model, the first measure of the overall level of the operating efficiency of the ambulatory clinic is the review of the overall team talent distribution (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy 451). Efficient talent distribution refers to the process of finding the right nexus that ensures that the right number of team members is combined with the right number of corresponding work skills so as to ensure that the goals and objectives of the team are met in totality (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy 451).
Buy-In
Buy-In is one of the most critical component measures of the level of efficiency of a team, more so within the context of the ambulatory clinics. According to Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy (452), Buy-In refers to the extent to which the team members comprehend, believe in and associate with that which the team seeks to accomplish; and they subsequently work enthusiastically and tirelessly in ensuring that the team`s objectives are eventually actualized (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy).
Morale
The last measure of team efficiency according to the Rocket Model is the overall morale of the team (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy 454). This level of morale is primarily determined by the extent to which any prevailing interpersonal conflicts are subsequently minimized and the fundamental levels of team cohesion consistently upheld in the course of the execution of the team`s mandate (Hughes, Ginnet and Curphy, 454). This measurement of efficiency can also apply within the context of the ambulatory clinics in the evaluation of the team`s overall performance.
Construct representing “Patient Satisfaction with Ambulatory Care”
(Louis and Maxwell 412)
The case of the transferred Employee
What would you do?
Do you change the documents?
Do you go back and confront your supervisor/
Yes I would go back and confront my supervisor despite the fact that he would deem such an action to be disloyal from me. The reason for my confrontation would be to demand for a better solution to the current predicament since his previous advice has proven to be unfathomable and uncomfortable with me at a personal level.
What is your decision and why did you make it?
My final decision would be to appraise the employee only for the duration of time that they had been working with me. Although this decision may have adverse consequences on my relationship with my superior, I made the decision so as to ensure that I do not become responsible for the falsifying of the work-related records of the employee who was transferred from the previous department.
What is your next course of action
My next course of action would be to ensure that the transferred employee is fully appraised for the year before he joined my department. The emphasis on this appraisal is informed by the fact that the employee is now my responsibility and any issues relating to his appraisal or other working factors would ultimately be charged on me if they were left unresolved as is currently the case.
Which other factors do you consider and which other actions would you take?
One of the key factors that I would take into consideration before taking any action is the extent to which the previous supervisor and my own supervisor might perceive my actions as being malicious, thereby creating a conflict between us that may affect the productivity and delivery of the team`s overall objectives. To avert the escalation of such a conflict, I would personally reach out to these two individuals and assure them that my actions are not personal but are based on the need to do what is good for the general wellbeing of both the employee and the organization.
Which ethical framework best supports your decisions?
The ethical theory of Consequentialism, which states that the basis for the evaluation of the rightness or wrongness of a decision lies in the consequences of one`s conduct (Stanford 2003) would be the basis on which I would support my decisions.
Works Cited
Hughes, Richard, Ginnet, Robert and Curphy, Gordon. Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of
Experience. New York: McGraw Hill Education, 2014. Print
Louis, Daniel and Maxwell, Kaye. “A Brief Instrument to Measure Patients’ Overall Satisfaction
With Primary Care Physicians.” Family Medicine, 43.6 (2011): 412 - 417
Stanford University. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, May 20 2003.
Web. 4 April 2016
