There are major stakeholders in this case; the community “Get Well” project, clients, and the local health authorities. The community project was receiving funding directly from the central government. This changed with introduction of lack authority contracting. According “Get Well”, they were offering better, cheaper and flexible services to their clients as compared to local authorities. This was through organizing of staff in groups based on their area of expertise. There was sequential process within “Get Well” to process projects from one department to another. The project director thinks that the local health authorities had no real interest in contracting with “Get Well.”
The local health authorities who are a major stakeholder in this case does not believe in efficiency of community projects in offering health services to clients. The local health authorizes believes that the task of providing health services should be solely left to them. They believe that community projects are not effectively managed and organized to offer better services. According to them subsidized drugs and medical assistances should not be allocated to private non-for profit organizations. Local authorities even withhold funds for the “Get Well” as why a way of making them surrenders patients to them.
The clients like community project to offer them medical services. “Get well” dispenses prescription drugs to 300 local clients. This shows that clients are happy and satisfied with the better, cheaper and flexible services offered by the community project. Clients are not satisfied with what local health authorities are offering which explains their refusal to transfer from “Get Well”. Clients are even involved in the resistance against transfers to local health authorizes care by even writing letters to their councilors, and members of parliament. This show the negative perception customers have against services offered by local health authorities.
A conflict is any disagreement within an organization that prevents it from achieving its objectives and goals (Pahl, 2009). Conflicts are very common in organizations either between individuals or groups/departments. Conflicts are caused by many factors which creates competition between two participants. One of the causes of conflict is differentiation between two participants (Harris, & Botten, 2008). This differentiation is normally due to differences in functioning especially when the two participants are doing the same task. Their differences in the way they do things always create conflict as it creates competition between them.
Task interdependence between units always leads to conflicts among them (Harris, and Botten, 2008). This implies that there is dependency of one participant to another on basis of materials, resources or even information. This interdependence can be grouped into three classes; pooled, sequential and reciprocal interdependence. In the case of pooled interdependence there is little sharing of and interaction between these units. In sequential interdependence one unit relies on another’s unit output as an input. Reciprocal is where units mutually exchange resources and information from one another (Harris, and Botten, 2008). Interdependence implies that employees from all units must interact and agree on how to benefit from each other. When these agreements are not reached or one unit fails to honor its part it results to conflicts. Another cause of conflict is the difference in perceptions between units which creates disagreements (Harris, and Botten, 2008).
Limited resources also lead to generation of conflicts between groups. If groups are sharing a limited resource as an input, competition arises on how to acquire of that resource. Conflicts will thus arise on ways to share or acquire the limited resource. Another cause of conflict is uncertainty between two groups or units (Harris, and Botten, 2008). When departments are dealing with usual problems between them they easily resolve them using past experiences. This changes when these groups encounter new problems and it becomes uncertain how to solve them which leads to conflicts. Another source of conflict is reward system between two departments (Singh, 2009). The more different the rewarding system between units the more conflicts will occur.
“Get well” and local health authorities are under a conflict on who to give better services to clients. This conflict is generated by their differentiated ways of offering services. “Get Well” thus offering better, cheaper and flexible services than local health services thus attracts more clients. Local health authorities who offer their services differently do not seem to attract more clients. Another cause of the conflict between these two stakeholders is the task interdependence between them. “Get well” was getting its funds straight from government till it was changed to local authorities. This has generated a conflict between them which has even lead to the withdrawal of funds by local health authorities from “Get Well.” Different perceptions among these two stakeholders are another reason for their conflict. Local health authorities think that community projects cannot offer better services to clients. This has lead to request of their transfer to local health authorities which has made the conflict worse.
Conflicts are not health for either individual units or organizations a whole and thus should be resolved. There many ways of solving conflicts one way been through competition (Singh, 2009). In competing parties use all the available resources and tactics to prove their point as right. Each unit here tries to defend their stand no matter what it takes forcibly. This method is most applicable in dealing with emergencies or when carrying out enforcement of unknown ideas. Another conflict resolution method is through collaboration (Pahl, 2009). Here both units come together and decide to find a solution to their differences. Each unit is ready and willing to defend its stand but not firmly as it is willing to make some adjustments to cater for a common ground. The two units thus argue their grounds, what they are willing to give up until they agree on common terms to help them work together without conflicts again. This method is important and applicable in learning something new.
Conflict can also be resolved through compromise (Singh, 2009). Here conflicting units look to come up with a middle-ground solution. This is intended to bring partial satisfaction to both units for a short while. Sometimes after a short period is over units tend to lose interest which regenerates the conflict again. This method is unlike collaboration as negotiations are not done to ensure a long term solution. This way of solving conflict is limited mostly to units that have equal power. Avoiding a conflict is another way of solving it (Singh, 2009). This is where either of the units under conflicts decides to back down and not fight. Thus the other unit is left with no competing partner thus the conflict ends. This method is mostly applicable where harm outweighs benefits. Accommodating other party’s demand in expense of your own is another way to solve a conflict. Here you put yourself in the other unit’s situation.
“Get well” can arrive at a solution with local health authorities through competition. Just as “Get Well” is doing it should use all available resources to show that it can effectively offer medical services better than local health authorities. Through use of MPs, councilors and letters from clients it can prove itself right. “Get well” can collaborate with local health authorities to come up with a solution to their differences. This will aid them in offering better services to clients together. Here they can share specialty in the medical field so that they serve different clients.
A leader in any given organization acts as its images he represents that organization. A leader thus has the role of been the representative of his organization (Hughes, & Beatty, K.2005). He must represent his organization to outside world in meeting or conferences. He has the role to communicate on behalf of his organization to the public outside. A leader also has the role to ensure that personal goals work hand-in-hand with organizational goals. A leader should be able to influence employee’s goals so that they integrate with organizational goals. This helps in achieving a common goal for the organization. A leader also has the role of soliciting support and co-operation among his employees (Hughes, & Beatty, 2005). Here a leader should have a room to consider suggestions from his subordinates as a way of supporting them. This result to willingness to work effectively by employees as they fill supported and considered of high importance.
A leader has the role of developing his subordinates to their fullest potential (Pattanayak, 2005). Here a leader tries to bring out the best in all employees. A leader acts as a coach here and he thus allocates duties according to his subordinates’ expertise in different tasks. Each an employee thus gets the chance to do what he/she is best in. Another leader’s role is to set an example to his subordinates. Here a leader participates in different activities to make his subordinates feel supported.
The “Get Well” community project head showed good qualities of a leader in his roles. The project leader acts as a representative when he communicates information about the community project to the funders, local politicians and councilors. The project leader also develops the fullest potential of his subordinates as he selects according to their expertise and capabilities to promote personal and professional development. The project leader set an example by approving and participating in design of group volunteers.
In any given organization, there are many types of teams in achieving organizational goals. Problem solving teams are those teams which are formed when a problem within the organization is encountered (Denhardt, 2002). These teams aid in coming up with a solution for the current problem they were formed for. These teams mostly consist of members from different departments. When the problem is solved these teams are dissolved. Another type of team is the virtual teams which are formed by use of collaborative software and conferencing systems (Denhardt, 2002). Members of these teams comes from different locations where their ability to meet is very costly. Members in these teams share documents, discuss and arrive at decisions through technological applications when they are at different locations.
Another type of organizational team is the cross-functional teams (Griffin, and Moorhead, 2009). These teams comprises of employees from different departments within the organization. The members are also of the same hierarchical level. These members come together to achieve a common task that needs different expertise to be accomplished. Another kind of team is the management teams which are formed by mangers from different departments (Griffin, and Moorhead, 2009). These managers comes together to be able to coordinate work teams. They determine the achievements of work teams and makes decision on how work teams should deliver expected results.
“Get well” community project has formed teams which help in accomplishment of different projects. The head of project forms problem solving teams with volunteers. This is because he assigns volunteers to groups only when the need arises. The project leader has also formed cross-functional groups by assigning group members with different expertise to different departments. This has helped the community project to deliver better, cheaper and flexible services.
Holistic thinking is where an individual takes the general thinking about something. You can analyze something either by parts or as a whole. Systemic thinking comes in when you view something as a whole and not using specific parts. Though this kind of thinking is hard it helps one to derive the general problems of a certain situation. This kind of thinking is different from the analytical thinking which looks at specific sections of a problem analyzing each at a go. The whole view of a problem helps in coming up with the general solution to solve those general problems identified. This kind of thinking also helps one not to be biased towards a specific section of the whole problem which means unrealistic analyzes of the problem might be drawn.
In this case the use of holistic thinking enables you to derive the general problem affecting all the stakeholders. By taking this case as a whole it becomes easier to identify the issue on medical services offering by private firms. This kind of thinking helps us to understand why there is a conflict between local health authorities and the “Get Well” community project. The general problem in this case is the competition between both the local health authorities and “Get Well” in provision of medical services to clients. This kind thinking also enable one not to concentrate on one stakeholder’s point of view in the issue which may lead to biased conclusions. Local health authorities here presents their case as “Get Well” not been able to offer better services than them to clients as it is a private facility. From the clients refusal to be transferred to from “Get Well” it is evident that the allegations made by local authority are biased. Thus this kind of holistic thinking helps us to identify the main problem with all units been considered. Holistic thinking also helps one to justify the actions taken by different stakeholders in this issue. With “Get Well” been under-estimated by the health authority it is justifiable for them to involve politicians to prove these allegations untrue as they are known to deliver expected services.