Healthcare Organizational Cultures

Healthcare Organizational Cultures

The concept of organizational culture is instrumental in the understanding of an individual’s behavior within an organization, given that they are tasked with the management of external demands as well as internal social changes. According to Ball et al. (1995), organizational cultures include the expectations, experiences, philosophies, and values, which are the guidelines of how an individual should behave within an organization. It is prudent to note that it defines what is appropriate in any given situation, the interactions of colleagues at the workplace, and also the extent to which the health care providers within a particular healthcare facility identify with their organization. This paper shall, therefore, seek to analyze a case study concerning organizational structure and leadership.

In light of the provided case study, the organizational culture of Central is adhocracy culture, while City’s organizational culture is the hierarchical structure (Sulkowski & Sulkowska, 2015). It is prudent to note that organizational culture can affect the employee’s learning activities, as well as their satisfaction and motivation levels. Additionally, a supportive organizational culture will help an employee to improve their knowledge and utilize it, something that can improve the performance of the organization (Mannion & Davies, 2018). To begin with, Central adhocracy culture has numerous advantages for a new graduate. This is because it allows for creativity on the part of employees, which has a significant bearing on job satisfaction. If a new graduate is satisfied with their job, they may not divert their attention to looking for other jobs but instead will focus on improving their performance. Secondly, the lack of strict rules and regulations provide a free environment for an employee to take risks and improve their knowledge. Additionally, it is prudent to note that such cultures are open to new ideas and suggestions. It would boost the new graduate’s motivation to work if they feel that their voice is essential in the activities of the hospitals.

On the other hand, the City’s hierarchical culture tends to be rigid. It discourages taking of risks, and this impedes the learning activities of a new graduate. Hierarchical culture is instrumental in boosting the employee’s motivation to work on the promise of a promotion.  This, therefore, translates to instilling higher work ethics in the new graduate. However, this motivation can be lost within the bureaucracy which exists in such a culture (Sulkowski & Sulkowska, 2015). The fact that communication from the new graduate to the top authority on matters regarding the hospital will take long may serve as a discouragement to the individual. It is pertinent to note that the first place a person works will determine their work ethics. In light of this, the hierarchical culture will develop rivalry in the new graduate. This is because departments within such structures make decisions that only benefit them as opposed to benefitting the whole organization (Sulkowski & Sulkowska, 2015). Another instance is the fact that individuals are working in competition for a promotion. This negates the whole aspect of teamwork, which is a basic tenet of healthcare.

The best organizational culture for a new graduate will be Central’s adhocracy culture. This is because it is a culture that believes in risk-taking, and as such, encourages innovation and creativity in how the individual will approach work. Such a culture will encourage the new graduate to take on challenges, take risks as well as break the assumptions of the organization (Braithwaite et al. 2016). This organizational culture will imbue leadership skills in a new graduate. This is because the principle of leadership, knowing oneself and seeking improvement (change), is achieved through this culture.

Additionally, it encourages learning from mistakes in the case where an individual fails in a challenge they take on.  In comparison to City’s culture, which offers job security, chances of specialization, and promotions, it would be prudent to choose Central’s culture.  As much as specialization may be suitable for a new graduate, it does not provide the new graduate with an opportunity to identify what they would like to specialize in (Braithwaite et al. 2016). The contingency leadership theory supports the choice of Central’s leadership structure. The theory supposes that no leadership style is suitable for all situations and a leader being able to change with situations. Such changes cannot be achieved with City’s structure as they are specific to their style and values and do not support changes.

In the situation that Susan was an experienced nurse, then the position on the choice of culture will differ. As an experienced nurse, Susan will need a hospital that offers employee engagement, which subsequently leads to employee satisfaction. In light of this, the organizational culture offers ways that can promote employee engagement. For example, it offers growth through promotions and hence deters boredom and job stagnation by providing the employee with something to work for or towards.  City’s organizational culture also provides job security with additional benefits such as timely payment and, as such, may be suitable for an experienced nurse (Braithwaite et al. 2016). Lastly, this culture allows employees to grow by placing them in roles where they can succeed by allowing for specialization.

It would be prudent to know the personality of Susan, something that will determine what organizational culture would be suitable for her. In the case that she has a bureaucratic personality, the City’s culture would be perfect. This is subject to the fact that this personality type respects subordination and rules. Persons of such personality thrive in cultures that have set organizational rules and regulations, especially in the instances where work to be done is routine and repetitive. Additionally, such individuals do not like taking risks and instead prefer already existing directions.  On the other hand, if she has the “Type A” personality, then aggressive and highly competitive will be her defining characteristics, and as such, central’s culture will be the best option for her.

In determining the choice of a hospital that would be suitable for Susan, there are several elements about the two hospitals that should be known. Firstly, there is the opportunity for career development that each hospital offers. As a nurse, career development is essential as the career by itself offers individuals the opportunity to capitalize on their skills, grow their potentials as well as their professional opportunities (Körner et al. 2015). Secondly, work hours are flexible, which will determine the probability of Susan burning out. Research has reported that American nurses are stressed out with a third of all the nurses in the United States reporting an emotional exhaustion score of twenty-seven, which is considered as a high burnout. Given that Susan is new to the nursing career, it would be prudent to know the flexibility of the working hours to determine the chances of being burned out.

References

Ball, M. J., Simborg, D. W., Albright, J. W., & Douglas, J. V. (1995). Healthcare Information Management Systems: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Springer New York.

Braithwaite, J., Herkes, J., Ludlow, K., Lamprell, G., & Testa, L. (2016). Association between organisational and workplace cultures, and patient outcomes: systematic review protocol: Table 1. BMJ Open, 6(12). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013758

Körner, M., Wirtz, M. A., Bengel, J., & Göritz, A. S. (2015). Relationship of organizational culture, teamwork and job satisfaction in interprofessional teams. BMC Health Services Research, 15(1). doi: 10.1186/s12913-015-0888-y

Mannion, R., & Davies, H. (2018). Understanding organisational culture for healthcare quality improvement. Bmj. doi: 10.1136/bmj.k4907

Sulkowski, Ł., & Sulkowska, J. (2015). Concept and Types of Organizational Cultures of Hospitals. Healthcare Administration, 1279–1305. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-6339-8.ch070