Workplace Collaboration Assessment - Term Paper Example

?Organization Summary Prototypes is a not for profit organization with branches throughout Southern California. Their mission is to assist women and children in becoming both physically and emotionally healthy. They deal with victims of substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental illness. Prototypes provides both inpatient and outpatient care to those it helps. Because of the very nature of the type of company that Prototypes is, they would benefit from workplace collaboration. There are over seventeen locations in six towns that are run by Prototypes. That adds up to a large, widespread, .employee base for one organization. Larger organizations need collaboration just as much if not more so than smaller organizations. If the employees and different centers are not communicating and working with one another as well as with the board of directors, the organization could fall apart due to lack of cohesiveness. Assessing risk management as well as administrative ecology are two excellent ways of helping implement and strengthen the necessary collaboration required for Prototypes to become the strongest organization possible. Suggested Methods of Collaberation Administrative ecology is a very good choice for evaluating and structuring collaboration of Prototypes. Prototypes is an organization that must work closely with their patients and the environments and backgrounds that their patients originate from. It is rare that the administrators of a large organization work hand in hand with the public. However, with a not for profit like Prototypes, it is essential that the administrators deal directly with their patients and, therefore, the public. In order for Prototypes to better serve their clients, they must study everything about the environment that their clients came from. Not only must things like soil and weather be researched, but more importantly, the economic background of their patients and the patients’ community. Does the patient come from an upper or middle class background where very few people are on government assistance? Or is the patient from a lower class or subsidized housing background where a majority of the community is on or in need of government assistance? What kind of technology have the patients had, or not had, access to? A big part of becoming and remaining a successful organization is to know your client’s history inside and out so you can better serve them. Administrative ecology is practical way to learn about clients (Weizhang, p. 241). For instance, if the soil in an area is bad, because the area was built over, say a former landfill, that could affect the health and genetics of the people who live, work, and play in that area every day. If a school doesn't have computers or technology, the education of its students is automatically rated substandard, especially in today's technological world. It would be important to have a whole picture of a client, and if the client had a substandard or mediocre education, then that would be something useful to know in dealing with and developing a treatment plan for that client. Trust development is also crucial for effective collaboration, especially with such a widespread organization. There has to be trust between the patients and the staff, of course. Otherwise the company is doomed to fail. However there also exist other forms of trust which must be addressed. Calculus based trust (which is trust that is based on information and decisions); Identity based trust both between participants and staff, as well as between staff members and team members. Institution based trust comes from the laws and restrictions which define acceptable behavior as well as unacceptable behavior (Dawes, p.2). Especially with an inpatient situation, all of these trust variants must be satisfied in order to continue the success of the organization and its work. Going hand in hand with trust is the concept of risk management. Every business takes risks. Some are calculated, and some are not. In a business that works with patients, be it a private hospital or a not for profit like Prototypes, it is essential to control risk management very carefully. This means more than just scrutinizing potential staff members before hiring them. Ideally, a full risk management assessment must be performed. This not only looks into the staff, but also investigates budget, facilities, advertising, and patients. Internal risks, those occurring within the company, must also be carefully be evaluated. These risks deal with the project mission itself, as well as the organization running the project, and the relationship risks that come from the organization and the project. Often, these are risks that can be bypassed on some level. A professional risk management team, either from within the organization itself, or contracted from the outside by the organization, should be formed to perform an overall risk management assessment. The results should then be brought before the appropriate organizational authorities so that they can be recognized and dealt with (Prefontaine, p.4). The balance of power must also be in check. While Prototypes has an administrative board, they must realize that they share power with the public. If the board of directors were to believe that they had absolute power over all decisions, they would lose the trust and bond they have developed with their patients and the general public. This would be unacceptable. Power is relevant for more than just those at the top of the structural hierarchy, and it would be a mistake for the Prototypes board of administrators to believe otherwise (Long, p. 104). A well-recognized balance of power must be maintained in order for Prototypes to continue to function successfully and adequately. One mistake that is often made is that accountability and collaboration go hand in hand. This is not the case at all. Accountability deals with performance measurement. It is jurisdictional, and has specifically designed standards, that businesses and governments are held to. Accountability basically states “this is how it should be and these are the rules that it should follow in order to be considered effective or successful”. Collaboration is much the opposite. It understands that not every situation can be held to exact standards, and that not every situation fits into a jurisdiction (Frederickson, p. 2). Collaboration deals with public problems and to have effective collaboration, a business must understand that each situation is unique and not every situation can be form fitted to a set of laws or guidelines. If Prototypes, an organization that deals largely with the public, were to confuse collaboration and accountability, or try to marry the two, it could spell disaster. For collaboration to really be successful, Prototypes, and organizations like it, must understand that collaboration is not accountability and the two must be kept exclusive at all costs. With all this comes the need to periodically evaluate collaboration methods. What is working and what is not. What previous collaboration methods should Prototypes continue to use and what methods are better off discarded. Not only should these collaboration methods be evaluated at each of the prototypes facilities, but they should be evaluated throughout the overall organization. This would best be done at meetings between the facilities. This would allow the facilities to compare notes on what changes they have made internally, and give the board of directors a solid idea of what collaboration methods should be instituted or abandoned overall. If done incorrectly, this evaluation could sail dangerously close to accountability waters. It is important to remember that it is effectiveness that is being measured, and not performance. Action Plan Prototypes should immediately begin to put these practices into effect. It will make them a stronger, more trustworthy organization. Doctors will be honest when they tell a young mother that they understand her plight, because they will have a better idea of where she came from. There will be fewer questions on ethics and appropriateness because proper behavior guidelines will be firmly defined. The organizations will be better able to cope with issues, and will be more prepared for any problems that might arise because a proper risk management has been done and the heads of the organization have been taught how to cope. A good study of administrative ecology could take six months to a year. A professional team could be hired, but it would be more cost effective to have interns do the work. A full study of the backgrounds from where the patients come from can take up to a year because demographics, school districts, and other public data must be carefully collected and scrutinized. Along with careful research, trips to the communities that patients reside in are a must. These communities must be seen firsthand, and local residents talked to. Time must be taken to research these communities and neighborhoods inside and out, so doctors, board members, and other staff members have a clear picture of where these patients come from. To hire an outside team to do this could be very expensive. However, hiring interns willing to do the work may be just as effective and could save the organization about half of what they may private team. For Prototypes, and organizations like it that rest heavily on donations, every penny counts. As long as interns are scrutinized on their ability to do adequate and timely research, Prototypes can get the same results for half the money of hiring a team (Gaus, p. 86). Developing solid trust foundations could take more time. The trust level that already exists inside and outside of the organization must be carefully evaluated. How much public trust does Prototypes have? How much calculus trust? Are financial decisions always being questioned? Do the patients trust the staff, and do other staff members trust each other? Are there constant questions of ethics concerning staff or patient behavior? Inexpensively, this level of trust can be determined by surveys in the facilities, phone polls to the community, and exit interviews for both staff and patients upon leaving the facility. Based on these results, the board of directors should meet, biannually at least to determine what regulations should be written, rewritten, or abandoned. An accountant can be brought in to ensure that trust on the calculus level has been met and that any financial decisions were handled appropriately and with adequate information. Seminars for the staff, such as sexual harassment or disability discrimination seminars, should be held at a reasonable frequency and attendance should be considered mandatory. Such seminars are not often expensive; as they are thought to enhance the knowledge and understanding the staff has for each other and the patients they work with every day. These seminars can pay for themselves in the long run based on the reduced rate of complaints and the increased rate of trust and unity seen throughout the organization (Dawes, p.5-6). Risk management is essential, but good risk management can be costly. It is best to hire an outside risk management consultant or team to evaluate Prototypes. An inside risk management team runs the risk of being bias, and compromising data and findings, whether intentionally or otherwise. A thorough risk management assessment could take six months or more, as every part of the company must be closely evaluated and monitored. This is especially true for a company like Prototypes that has over seventeen different facilities. Risk management teams look at patient interaction, staff interaction, interaction between the general public and the organization, advertising, and financial risks. It looks at past, current, and future potential risks. Once a risk management team has completed a thorough assessment, they will develop a plan to help Prototypes deal with risks it has currently, point out where the organization may have failed with past risks, and give a strong foundation with how to cope with and control future risks It is like an insurance policy. However, this insurance policy is not just for the staff members or organizations heads at Prototypes. (Prefontaine, p. 6). This insurance policy also covers, to an extent, the general public. However, it also covers the patients and clients of Prototypes, ensuring that they receive the best possible and safest care, available. If Prototypes cannot provide adequate care on any level to its patients, it will fail as an organization. Prototypes would run the risk of losing both donations and patients. Neither of which they can afford to do if they plan to continue helping the public. Anyone who has ever paid out of pocket for health insurance will say that insurance can be costly. This is no different with effective risk assessment. It could cost hundreds of dollars, or even thousands. The cost depends on how effective and how thorough a risk assessment Prototypes is willing to have done, and how strong and effective the coping strategies that Prototypes will ultimately put to use should be. In this department, it ultimately pays to splurge. It does not cost much money to make sure that accountability and collaboration are not confused for each other, but it is also something that requires constant attention. Staff members from inside the organizations can be tapped to review collaboration methods and policies, either at random times or specifically scheduled one. The goal is to look at all of the data and make sure that it is effectiveness that is being measured, and not performance. Prototypes must be sure that patients are not being molded to fit a situation or standard, and that the care is being individually tailored to the patient. Not the other way around. This could devastate the patient success rate, and damage Prototypes’ credibility as a not for profit hospital or treatment facility. Self-policing is only costly with reference to the time that must be spent on it, but it allows the organization to maintain credibility and continue helping people in the way they need to be. Professionalism is keying these circumstances (Frederickson, p.4). This having been stated, the same approach can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of collaboration methods. Facility employees can be asked to review the collaboration methods that are being used overall. Surveys and polls can be taken, both in and outside of the facilities. An organization’s with successful collaboration methods in practice is obvious to the general public, as is a facility or organization that is not using successful methods of collaboration. Keeping an eye on collaborative methods will ensure that a weak organization gets stronger, and that a strong organization, such as Prototypes, continues to maintain or grow in strength. Prototypes is a strong organization to begin with. Putting these collaboration methods into practice can only make it stronger. An organization with strong foundations that only allows it to grow stronger has more room for expansion. Prototypes could, in just under five years , bring in more donations, help more patients, and open up new facilities in other areas to reach patients and clients in need that it was unable to reach previously. Prototypes can build better facilities and provide more personalized services with the right collaboration methods and public understanding in place. Many not for profit organizations falter due to lack of understanding of the people and communities they are trying to assist. These organizations have the best intentions, and probably start off doing well in their infancy. However, if they are not using proper collaboration methods for their fields, they will not continue to do well in the community. Administrators must understand that their power is not exclusive and that much of an organizations success rests with the satisfaction of clients and the community (Long, p.104). Conclusion Prototypes has served many women and children. Getting them help from substance abuse, medical care, and out of domestic violence situations. They have served those women and children who have issues with pregnancy and mental illness. Prototypes came into existence in 1986, and has obviously come very far in its twenty four year run. This is, in large part, due to the successful collaboration methods they have already put into place. However, there is much more that Prototypes can do and many more people that they can help. The key to their success is to continue using successful collaboration methods. Everyone involved with the organization, from the board of directors, to the nurse who works daily with patients, to the patients themselves has some level of decision making ability when it comes to the continued success and unity of Prototypes. Working with patients and the community at large is what has given Prototypes the success it has already enjoyed. It can and will enjoy further success by maintaining the positive workplace and community relationship measures it has thus far. It must continue to nurture and develop those relationships, as trust is a constant must for such an organization. If Prototypes loses public trust, it could shut down as fast as it expanded. The only way to ensure that this does not happen is with constant and careful research, understanding, and evaluation. Not just of the patients, but of the organization itself. In effect, Prototypes is offering itself treatment, just as it offers treatments to its patients, just in different way. Collaboration can be considered medication and therapy for a company. It is the glue that holds an organization together. Without adequate collaboration, an organization is doomed to failure. The only question is how long it will take. Resources Frederickson, H. George; When Accountability Meets Collaboration; February 2007 Gaus, John M; the Ecology of Public Administration; 1961 Prefontaine, Lisa; Risk Management in New Models of Collaboration; Center Francophone d’information des organizations, 2003. Dawes, Shawn; New Models of Collaboration: a Guide for Managers; Center for technology in government, 2003 Sullivan, Helen; Working across Boundaries; p. 8-9, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 Long, Norton E; Power and Administration, p 103 – 108. Weizhang, Liu; Analysis and Comparison of Administrative Ecology and Information Ecology Theory: Concurrently Discuss the Strategies to develop e-Government in China; Management of e-commerce and e-government; 24 October 2010, p. 240 – 243. Read More