HA 605 Park University Westmount Nursing Homes Discussion
HA 605 Park University Westmount Nursing Homes Discussion
Description
Leadership
Unit Learning Outcomes
ULO #1: Determine the style of leadership that is most effective when it comes to advancing business goals and objectives by taking into consideration existing group dynamics. (CLO 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7)
ULO #2: Design tactical strategies intended to garner personnel support for management lead initiatives so as to maximize their potential for success. (CLO 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7)
ULO #3: Compare and contrast sources of power, organizational politics, and influence. (CLO 2, 4, and 7)
Rakich, J. S., Longest, B. B., & Darr, K. (2010). Cases in health services management (5th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Health Professions Press.
Introduction
Epilogue: Shirley Carpenter, Chief Executive Office, Westmount Nursing Homes, took a deep breath and looked at her watch. It was 3:40 p.m. and just 20 minutes were left to get ready for her meeting with the board. She knew there was going to be a difficult confrontation and believed that many board members would call into question her leadership skills and administrative judgment. She felt that her well-earned reputation as a brilliant strategist and dynamic change agent would be put to a severe test. She needed to find a way to calm the widespread fear that the total quality management (TQM) initiative she had worked so hard to implement at Westmount Nursing Homes was badly off the rails. She wondered what had gone wrong and how it could be saved.
This case illustrates a number of organizational behavior and leadership concepts, and then frames them in the context of a “real world” scenario. While Ms. Carpenter had experienced a largely successful career in senior leadership positions in her prior organization, this wasn’t indicative of how she would be perceived within her current firm. This may be counterintuitive. After all, if someone has been a successful executive in one company, why would they be less effective as a leader in another organization? Simply put, there is no one style of leadership and not all leadership styles are appropriate for all business settings. To truly be success as a leader, you need to be able to adjust aspects of your leadership style to conform to the unique aspects and needs of the business unit. Failure to take this latter point into consideration can serve as a catalyst for organizational disruptions that manifest in to behavior issues and operational inefficiencies.
Directions
Case study: Carefully read Westmount Nursing Homes, Inc., Case #16, located on page 245, in your Cases in Health Services Management book (5th edition), and complete the below task.
Ms. Carpenter is curious as to why her effort to create a culture that embraces total quality management has been unsuccessful and how she might be able to get this initiative back on track. There are some in the organization that recognize the importance of quality management and appear eager to engage in process improvement initiatives, whereas others are less than enthusiastic. Functioning as an external organizational consultant, students are to critically examine the circumstances which led up to the board meeting with Ms. Carpenter. Assuming the board keeps Ms. Carpenter in her current position, and then officially supports the change in corporate culture to one that embraces quality management, what actions should be taken to get the TQM initiative back on track? The students will prepare a formal proposal for Ms. Carpenter that includes a detailed analysis of the circumstances which led the board meeting, and then provide an action plan for getting the quality management initiative back on track. The focus shouldn’t be limited to the TQM initiative, but take a broader look at the leadership and organizational dynamics of Westmount Nursing Home, Inc.
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| Main Postinga | 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible sources.
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Post is cited with two credible sources.
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible sources.
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
|
| Main Post: Timeliness | 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by day 3. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post by day 3. |
|
| First Response | 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Second Response | 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. |
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. |
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited. |
|
| Participation | 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. |
0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||