Management And Organisational Processes Essay

1.

Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q 2012;90:421–56. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00670.x. [PMC free article: PMC3479379] [PubMed: 22985277] [Cross Ref]

2.

Rousseau DM. Reinforcing the micro/macro bridge: organizational thinking and pluralistic vehicles. J Manage 2011;37:429–42. 10.1177/0149206310372414. [Cross Ref]

3.

Haraden C, Leitch J. Scotland’s successful national approach to improving patient safety in acute care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:755–63. 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0144. [PubMed: 21471498] [Cross Ref]

4.

Turner S, Ramsay A, Perry C, Boaden R, McKevitt C, Morris S, et al. Lessons for major system change: centralization of stroke services in two metropolitan areas of England [published online ahead of print 24 January 2016]. J Health Serv Res Policy 2016. 10.1177/1355819615626189. [PMC free article: PMC4904350] [PubMed: 26811375] [Cross Ref]

5.

Langley A, Denis J-L. Beyond evidence: the micropolitics of improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2011;20:i43–6. 10.1136/bmjqs.2010.046482. [PMC free article: PMC3066842] [PubMed: 21450770] [Cross Ref]

6.

Conrad DA, Grembowski D, Hernandez SE, Lau B, Marcus-Smith M. Emerging lessons from regional and state innovation in value based payment reform: balancing collaboration and disruptive innovation. Milbank Q 2014;92:568–623. 10.1111/1468-0009.12078. [PMC free article: PMC4221757] [PubMed: 25199900] [Cross Ref]

7.

Waring J. A Movement for Improvement? A Qualitative Study on the Use of Social Movement Strategies in the Implementation of a Quality Improvement Intervention. Presentation at Health Services Research Network Symposium, Nottingham Conference Centre, Nottingham, UK, 1–2 July 2015.

8.

Adler PS, Kwon SW, Heckscher C. Perspective-professional work: the emergence of collaborative community. Organ Sci 2008;19:359–76. 10.1287/orsc.1070.0293. [Cross Ref]

9.

Harrison MI, Kimani J. Building capacity for a transformation initiative: system redesign at Denver Health. Health Care Manage Rev 2009;34:42–53. 10.1097/01.HMR.0000342979.91931.d9. [PubMed: 19104263] [Cross Ref]

10.

Barach P, Johnson JK. Understanding the complexity of redesigning care around the clinical microsystem. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15(Suppl. 1):10–16. 10.1136/qshc.2005.015859. [PMC free article: PMC2464878] [PubMed: 17142602] [Cross Ref]

11.

Geertz C. Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture. In Lincoln Y, Denzin N, editors. Turning Points in Qualitative Research: Tying Knots in a Handkerchief. Oxford: Altamera Press; 2003. pp.143–68.

12.

Robert GB, Anderson JE, Burnett SJ, Aase K, Andersson-Gare B, Bal R, et al. A longitudinal, multi-level comparative study of quality and safety in European hospitals: the QUASER study protocol. BMC Health Serv Res 2011;11:285. 10.1186/1472-6963-11-285. [PMC free article: PMC3212959] [PubMed: 22029712] [Cross Ref]

13.

Currie G, Lockett A, El Enany N. From what we know to what we do: lessons learned from the translational CLAHRC initiative in England. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013;18(Suppl. 3):27–39. 10.1177/1355819613500484. [PubMed: 24127358] [Cross Ref]

14.

Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, et al. An implementation research agenda. Implement Sci 2009;4:1–7. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-18. [PMC free article: PMC2671479] [PubMed: 19351400] [Cross Ref]

15.

Richards DA. The Complex Intervention Framework. In Richards DA, Hallberg, IR, editors. Complex Interventions in Health: An Overview of Research Methods. London: Routledge; 2015, pp. 1–15.

16.

Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q 2004;82:581–629. 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00325.x. [PMC free article: PMC2690184] [PubMed: 15595944] [Cross Ref]

17.

Davidoff F, Dixon-Woods M, Leviton L, Michie S. Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2015;24:228–38. 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627. [PMC free article: PMC4345989] [PubMed: 25616279] [Cross Ref]

18.

Tuohy CH. Reform and the politics of hybridization in mature health care states. J Health Polit Policy Law 2012;37:611–32. 10.1215/03616878-1597448. [PubMed: 22466051] [Cross Ref]

19.

Scott SD, Plotnikoff RC, Karunamuni N, Bize R, Rodgers W. Factors influencing the adoption of an innovation: an examination of the uptake of the Canadian Heart Health Kit (HHK). Implement Sci 2008;3:41. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-41. [PMC free article: PMC2567341] [PubMed: 18831766] [Cross Ref]

20.

Dixon-Woods M, Bosk C, Aveling EL, Goeschel CA, Pronovost PJ. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q 2011;89:167–205. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00625.x. [PMC free article: PMC3142336] [PubMed: 21676020] [Cross Ref]

21.

Fulop N, Robert G. Context for Successful Improvement: Evidence Review. London: The Health Foundation; 2015.

22.

Tsoukas H, Chia R On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organ Sci 2002;13:567–82. 10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810. [Cross Ref]

23.

Langley A, Denis J-L. [Les dimensions négligées du changement organisationnel.] Télescope 2008;14:13–32.

24.

Tuohy C. Accidental Logics: The Dynamics of Policy Change in the United States, Britain and Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.

25.

May C. Towards a general theory of implementation. Implement Sci 2013;8:18. 10.1186/1748-5908-8-18. [PMC free article: PMC3602092] [PubMed: 23406398] [Cross Ref]

26.

Weiss C. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1998.

27.

McDonald R, Kristensen SR, Zaidi S, Sutton M, Todd S, Konteh F, et al. Evaluation of the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation Framework Final Report. Manchester: University of Manchester; 2013. URL: http://hrep​.lshtm.ac​.uk/publications/CQUIN​_Evaluation_Final_Feb2013–1​.pdf (accessed August 2015).

28.

Brook RH, Keeler EB, Lohr KN, Newhouse JP, Ware JE, Rogers WH, et al. The Health Insurance Experiment: A Classic RAND Study Speaks to the Current Health Care Reform Debate. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2006. URL: www​.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9174 (accessed August 2015).

29.

Finkelstein A, Taubman S, Wright B, Bernstein M, Gruber J, Newhouse JP, et al. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment: evidence from the first year. Q J Econ 2012;127:1057–106. 10.1093/qje/qjs020. [PMC free article: PMC3535298] [PubMed: 23293397] [Cross Ref]

30.

Taubman S, Allen H, Wright B, Baicker K, Finkelstein A. Medicaid increases emergency department use: evidence from Oregon’s Health Insurance Experiment. Science 2014;343:263–8. 10.1126/science.1246183. [PMC free article: PMC3955206] [PubMed: 24385603] [Cross Ref]

31.

Baicker K, Finkelstein A, Song J, Taubman S. The Impact of Medicaid on Labor Force Activity and Program Participation: Evidence from the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment. NBER working paper 19547. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2013. [PMC free article: PMC4145849] [PubMed: 25177042]

32.

Steventon A, Bardsley M, Billings J, Dixon J, Doll H, Hirani S, et al. Effect of telehealth on use of secondary care and mortality: findings from the Whole System Demonstrator cluster randomised trial. BMJ 2012;344:e3874. 10.1136/bmj.e3874. [PMC free article: PMC3381047] [PubMed: 22723612] [Cross Ref]

33.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Head Start Impact Study Final Report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.

34.

Ettelt S, Mays N. RCTs – how compatible are they with contemporary health policy-making?Br J Health Manag 2015;21:379–82. 10.12968/bjhc.2015.21.8.379. [Cross Ref]

35.

Steventon A, Grieve R, Bardsley M. An approach to assess generalizability in comparative effectiveness research: a case study of the whole systems demonstrator cluster randomized trial comparing telehealth with usual care for patients with chronic health conditions. Med Decis Making 2015;35:1023–36. 10.1177/0272989X15585131. [PMC free article: PMC4592957] [PubMed: 25986472] [Cross Ref]

36.

Medical Research Council. Using Natural Experiments to Evaluate Population Health Interventions: Guidance for Producers and Users Of Evidence. MRC; 2012. URL: www​.mrc.ac.uk/naturalexperimentsguidance (accessed August 2015).

37.

Yelland J, Riggs E, Szwarc J, Casey S, Dawson W, Vanpraag D, et al. Bridging the gap: using an interrupted time series design to evaluate systems reform addressing refugee maternal and child health inequalities. Implement Sci 2015;10:62. 10.1186/s13012-015-0251-z. [PMC free article: PMC4425879] [PubMed: 25924721] [Cross Ref]

38.

Pronovost P, Jha AK. Did hospital engagement networks actually improve care?N Eng J Med 2014;371:691–3. 10.1056/NEJMp1405800. [PubMed: 25140953] [Cross Ref]

39.

Benning A, Dixon-Woods M, Nwulu U, Ghaleb M, Dawson J, Barber N, et al. Multiple component patient safety intervention in English hospitals: controlled evaluation of second phase. BMJ 2011;342:d199. 10.1136/bmj.d199. [PMC free article: PMC3033437] [PubMed: 21292720] [Cross Ref]

40.

Essay on Management and Organization

2025 Words9 Pages

Introduction The management and organizational approaches that are used by various firms play a critical role in their performance. The adopted management approach is important due to the fact that it determines the efficiency with which activities are performed. The organizational structure of the firm on the other hand determines the delegation and application of authority. The organizational structure is developed by the management. The structure facilitates effective interaction among employees and helps in directing resources towards achieving the goals of the organization. The behavior of employees is also influenced by the management and organizational approach (Mullins 3). Thus a firm will only be successful if it adopts the best…show more content…

First, it is based on the assumption that firms operate in a capitalist economy that is associated with “a free market system” (Perterson 47) in which transactions are facilitated by money. Thus the most important objective of the firms is profit maximization and improving efficiency levels. Second, the workers are expected to be rational. This means that they are supposed to work-hard in order to maximize their earnings. Besides, they are expected to prioritize the goals and objectives of the organization. Finally, organizations are supposed to increase their production capacities in order to enjoy the benefits of “division of labor and specialization of tasks” (Daft 56).
The principles of the theory The scientific management theory is based on four principles. The principles form the basis for designing processes, managing workers and improving productivity. Thus an organization that uses the scientific management approach will improve its efficiency and productivity if it follows the principles correctly. The principles are as follows.
Developing a Science for Every Element of Work According to this principle, the old rule-of-thump should be replaced by clear-cut procedures. Such procedures can be developed through a careful study of the various processes within the organization in order to “develop the one best way to do everything” (Cook and Hunsacker 45). In order to identify

Show More

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *