meaningful relationship between chairs and administrators

meaningful relationship between chairs and administrators

Numerous actions can be taken by Percy to enhance a more meaningful relationship between chairs and administrators (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). The primary way is to augment the level of education of the administrators. An evaluation done by Percy has revealed that a majority of the administrators don’t have the needed skills for the management of clinical operations. The lack of skills has significantly contributed to the declining relationships between chairs and administrators in the institution. To improve their education, the organization can come up with leadership and management education programs that if taken one will be given an incentive of, for instance, a bonus (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). Through the programs, the administrators will be equipped with the necessary skills and experiences needed for working with others, ultimately leading to the enhancement in relationships within the organization.

Moreover, Percy needs to centralize the leadership (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). Presently, there is no administrator in the institution who reports to Percy, meaning that Percy is not entirely aware of what is going on in the organization that he is in charge of. Therefore, even when there are issues in the organization, the administrators keep the issues to themselves and try to solve the issues until the issues can no longer be hidden. With the centralization in leadership, the administrators will be forced to report to Percy not only the gains that they are making but also the challenges that they are facing (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). The frequent reports from the administrator will make it easy for Percy to identify problems facing the organizations quickly and work collectively with the administrators to address the challenges.

Similarly, if the leadership is not centralized, Percy can develop a relationship between the chairs and administrators by creating some type of business plan that all the chairs and administrators could agree with (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). Arguably, it is challenging to understand the viewpoints of the chairs of the department since they are in charge of their units and set their own rules and regulations. But for the hospital and departments to work harmoniously and adequately, the administrators have to have some sought of agreement with the leaders of these departments (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). Therefore, the simple way to have the agreement is to commit to doing the things that can be done commonly and scheduling the activities together. Percy role, in this case, is to act as a mediator between the chairs of department and administrators. Percy has to reassure them that both their roles are essential to the organization and that it is only by them working together that the objectives can be attained.

Additionally, Percy needs to clearly outline the roles of the chairs of the department and that of administrators so that each of them can understand their authority (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). One of the issues that are causing conflicts between the chair of department and administrators is that each one of them what to be superior to others. The outlining of their roles will enable them to know what they can do and what they can’t do. For instance, in this case, the roles of the chairs of the department are to help in the recruitment of employees, budgeting for their departments, implementation of the departmental plan and frequently consulting with the faculty on various relevant matters like academic programs. Also, the chairs of departments have to consult with the administrators and be guided accordingly about their shared governance in the organization (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). On the other hand, the administrators are to oversee the daily operations of the organizations and do any tasks delegated to them by Percy.

Finally, Percy needs to ask both the chairs of departments and administrators the expectations of their work relationships (Mcalearney & Kovner, 2013). Making the expectations clear will help embrace the dynamism that exists between the chairs of departments and administrators. Further, when each group makes it clear what they expect from each other, they can confidently work together to attain the goals of the organization. For instance, one of the administrators have ambiguous expectations of the chairs of the department and the chairs of departments need to make clear to them what they can do and the limits of their power. With their responsibilities and boundaries clearly defined, it will be easy to develop a good working relationship since there will be little or no misunderstandings.

Should faculty compensation be left to the individual departments to determine? Who else might be able to assist with this process?

No, primarily because the departments have been tasked with the recruitment process, and they are doing a poor job so far (Flynn, Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2015). They lack organization in their recruitment procedure hence creating frustration for those candidates that are being recruited. Further, up to the date, the departments have not come together to create a standardized process for recruitment, and this means that if they are left to form the compensation structure, each department will have a different compensation structure hence making it hard for the organization to analyze the various aspects of compensation (Flynn, Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2015). Further, the departments do not have a system that can help them determine how much the managed care companies are paying, and if they are paying appropriately. It means that that they have little or no knowledge about the revenues that the company is making and for these departments to create an effective compensation structure; they have to be aware of the revenues and expenses of the company.

Additionally, the administrators do not have the essential management skills, and this will make it difficult for them to make compensation structures that can guarantee the well-being of the organization (Flynn, Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2015). Compensation is a tool utilized by the management for various reasons to guarantee the existence of the firm and the management needs to have the ability to adjust the compensation according to the needs of the business, its objectives and the available resources. For instance, the management can use compensation to enhance job satisfaction and motivation, attain internal and external equity particularly among the organization departments, decrease turnover and inspire employee loyalty to the organization, to reward and ensure excellent performance among the employees and more importantly to recruit and train the high quality and qualified employees (Flynn, Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2015). In any organization, the recruitment and retention of personnel is a common goal for all the departments meaning that it has to be centralized. Centralization of this function helps decrease the recruitment costs. It enables the use of market factors and not internal organizational factors in setting new compensation levels for the new hires. Further, motivation has to be collectively done in an organization since if one of the departments in the organization is not motivated, the organizational goals will not be attained.

Also, all the departments need to reach a consensus about the monetary value that they are willing to pay for the productivity of the employee so that no department feels that the organization is being biased towards it (Lindberg, 2014). Further, they are components of the compensation plan that specific departments cannot access, but the top leadership of the organization such as Percy can access. For instance, the department can access job analysis since it aids in the development of job descriptions. Still, not all departments perform job evaluations and which is primarily for determining the compensations level of a particular job (Flynn, Mathis, Jackson & Valentine, 2015). Therefore, job evaluation can be effectively done when all the departments are centralization. Further, salary surveys which are an important part of the compensation since they help collect market data about average salaries, indicators, cost of living and inflation are conducted by an organization. The salary surveys cannot be individually administered by the departments (Lindberg, 2014). Finally, there exists s of different types of compensation and to make sure that the compensation structure is uniform throughout the organization, all compensation activities need to be centralized. The departments can also help in the formation of the compensation structure.

What the faculty needs to do is to create a department that is in charge of compensation. It is because in some cases, the human resource department can be overwhelmed, making it challenging for them to handle compensation effectively (Lindberg, 2014). Compensation is vital for ensuring the commitment of employees and the organization need to create a department that can be trusted by the employees to give them the compensation that they deserve. Finally, the failure of the human resource department to develop effective compensation plans makes it difficult for the organization to trust other departments to create compensation plans.

Conceptually, is it acceptable to have faculty who do not generate a profit? If so, how are these losses typically covered?

Yes, it is acceptable, especially in this case, the department of surgery can perform surgery on a few persons for free (Flower, 2012). Organizations that deal with health constantly struggle with making money and surviving patients. But, most f not all the healthcare workers have sworn to put the human lives of persons, and that is why it is easy to find a faculty in a school of medicine or healthcare organization that doesn’t make a profit. However, despite healthcare institutions and their organizations not geared towards making a profit, they still have employees to pay, resources to buy and expenses to pay. Therefore, despite the faculties not being able to generate revenues and ultimately, profits, they have to make up for their losses (Flower, 2012). One of the ways of making up for their losses is to look at the various fundraising sources for the healthcare organizations that teach and take care of patients at the same time. Some individual donors are committed to donating to these kinds of healthcare organizations. Also, other significant sources of fundraising are foundations and corporations. Therefore, these faculties have a task of acquiring the support of the general public to back them in getting the funds (Flower, 2012). Also, fundraising is unique to every organization whose primary goal is not to make a profit. For instance, the healthcare organization can decide to hold dinners and invite the high profile members of the community who will have to pay a fortune to get a seat at the table.

Additionally, the faculty members have to be made to understand that their careers are about making a difference in society and they have to work on supporting the cause of the faculty and healthcare organization in general (Barisa, 2010). Therefore, the salary may not be what a person wants, and the organization has to make this clear right from the recruitment process. However, after getting the donor funds, they have to prioritize the salaries of the employees since their efforts are not always appreciated. Moreover, to cover for those surgeries that are not paid for, the faculty can come up with other activities that it can engage in. For instance, the faculty can come with some health programs that advice the community on various health issues (Barisa, 2010). The faculty can then charge a small fee to the community to sell the information that the program offers. Another activity is for the organization to partner with other organizations that understand that the work they do is not only for profit but also to save human lives. Therefore, these organizations can help donate the resources that the faculty requires and supplement their budget when they need it.

Should the faculty practice be centralized or decentralized? Why?

The faculty needs to adopt a centralized structure (Chen, 2012). The centralized model is whereby the school of medicine becomes its entity, independent of the healthcare organization. Therefore, if the organization wants anything from the school of medicine, they will first have to request the schools top leadership, and the request will not be randomly assigned (Chen, 2012). The request for the most important will be prioritized. Without a doubt, the centralized model has numerous advantages ad its primary it will ensure that the organization is flexible. There are times that there will be peaks and valleys in the workloads of the faculty. Therefore, through using a centralized approach, resources can be easily shifted to when and where they are required, but if the faculty adopts a decentralized approach, this cannot happen (Chen, 2012). For instance, if the research department requires increased workforce due to the increased amount of data, analysts from other departments can be shifted to help deal with the increase in workload. Further, if they are a backlog of requests from the hospital to a particular department of a faulty, the faculty can easily adjust its resources to address the requests.

Additionally, the centralization model can support individuals who have various skill sets. It is unlike in the decentralized model whereby only one individual can be hired to do a particular job independently (Örtenblad, Löfström & Sheaff, 2015). However, for the decentralized model, the organization will be permitted to have a mix of skill levels. It means that the junior and mid-level management persons can go up the hierarchy to get their questions answered or learn about new abilities. Similarly, in a centralized model, there is better management of resources since the management is aware of the ongoing tasks, how long the tasks are going to take and when the tasks are complete (Örtenblad, Löfström & Sheaff, 2015).

Thus, the management can effectively plan the resources to meet the demands. Likewise, a centralized approach will show a clear chain of command, and in this case, it will show that Percy is in control. A clear chain of command is significant because every person in the faculty will know who to report to and who to approach whenever they have any concerns (Örtenblad, Löfström & Sheaff, 2015). Also, it will be easy for Percy to delegate duties to the administrators and make sure they do the work they have been assigned. A clear chain of command is particularly vital since the faculty needs to implement its decisions speedily and in a unified manner.

Furthermore, with a centralized approach, the costs of operation and management will reduce (Shi & Singh, 2017). For instance, there will be no need for faculty to hire department heads since Percy makes critical decisions, and his team then communicated to the branches of the organization. Also, since a centralized approach encourages a clear chain of command, the duplication of responsibilities that can lead to additional costs to the organization will be decreased. Likewise, centralization enhances the quality of work since with standardized procedures; it would become easy for Percy to supervise the administrators and all the workers in general (Shi & Singh, 2017). Also, the administrators will have to make sure that their units deliver high-quality work, use technology to decrease wastage and guarantee high-quality work. Further, standardization reduces duplication of work and encourages people to share knowledge since they are even sharing tools. Also, if a person is away because he or she is sick, on vacation or unavailable, standardization makes it easy for the other employees to fill the gap of the absent employees. Finally, standardization is not costly and chapter than decentralization, and it guarantees that almost everything is done instantly.

In conclusion, centralization is the best way to go since it will encourage and promote personal leadership among the chairs of department and administrators. Currently, there is no personal leadership, particularly among the administrators, since the system is decentralized, and they believe that the leadership of the company will not notice the wrongs they are doing. However, administrators need to be more accountable for their actions. Also, personal leadership is significant since it ensures the attainment of departmental and organizational objectives. Further, it encourages the employees to work hard and guarantee the profitability and sustainability of the organization. For the chairs of the department, personal leadership will be vital since it will aid in the streamlining of the recruitment process, creation of a conducive working environment by making sure that every worker has enough working space, meeting the revenue targets set by the faculty and development of systems that are effective and efficient. Finally, personal leadership will enable the departments to work in collaboration with the top leadership of the organization to make sure that all the departments within the institution fulfil their obligations. The excellent working relationship between the management and departments is essential for the attainment of organizational objectives.