hsc poster1

1
Could The Leadership and Conflict Management Styles Be Translated into A Consistent Organisational Culture? Hossam Elamir Department of Quality and Accreditation, Mubarak Al-Kabeer Hospital, MOH MSc in Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland A Q & m II. Case Summary The author’s conflict handling modes –by answering Conflict Mode Instrument- were compromising 90% and accommodating 75% (Fig. 4). Answering the Leadership Style Questionnaire by the author resulted in a task-oriented score=20 and people-oriented score=16 (Fig. 5). The author and the eight department’s staff answered G&J tool. Staff’s main response for the first part was Communal (Fig. 6). Their second part’s responses were communal. The author’s responses for both parts were Communal. Author and staff’s answers of the third and fourth parts identified nine +ve versus five -ve aspects (Fig 7). In other words, the author’s leadership and conflict management styles were aligning with the perceived Communal culture and fit in perfectly as they solve the conflict between “the heart” of sociability and “the mind” of solidarity. The staff responses for the analysis of their previous departments were not Communal, which means a new culture was established and maintained. III. Conclusions The department’s founder (author) had a vision of what the department should be, and its small size made it easy to impose that vision on all staff (Fig. 8) and embed his personality in the culture [1] . The high sociability and solidarity Communal strong culture was created by the founder's balanced task and people-oriented leadership together with the medium assertive and cooperative compromising and low assertive high cooperative accommodating conflict handling modes. This strong culture has a positive net impact. IV. References 1. Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational behavior. 15th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson; 2013. 2. Goffee R, Jones G. The character of a corporation: how your company’s culture can make or break your business. 1st ed. UK; 1998. 3. Thomas KL, Kilman RH. Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA, USA: CPP, Inc.; 1974. 4. Pfeiffer JW, Jones JE. A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training. Revised. CA, USA: ; 1974. V. Acknowledgement and Contacts I would like to acknowledge the help provided by Dearbhla Casey, Former Programme Director at RCSI Institute of Leadership For further information contact: Dr. Hossam Elamir, Head of Quality & Accreditation Department, MKH, MOH, Kuwait Mobile: 00965-65198442 - E mail: [email protected] Linkedin URL: kw.linkedin.com/pub/hossam-elamir/b2/97b/296 I. Background Culture is a group personality resulted from people’s interactions over time and planted by the organisation founder’s effect. [1] A 2ry care hospital’s Quality department culture was assessed using Goffee & Jones’ tool. Depending on levels of solidarity (task-based) and sociability (people-based), G&J present Double S Model that identify 4 cultures: Networked (high sociability, low solidarity), Communal (high sociability & solidarity), Fragmented (low sociability & solidarity) and Mercenary (low sociability, high solidarity) (Fig. 1). The tool is composed of 4 analysis parts, the first two look at Physical space, Time, Communication and Identity, while the second two assess the culture impact. Plotting person’s behaviour along 2 dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness identifies 5 conflict handling modes: compromising, accommodating, competing, avoiding and collaborating (Fig. 2). A 3rd tool assessing the leadership style gives scores for task and people-oriented dimensions (Fig. 3). UNASSER T IVE ASSERT IVE UNCOOPERA T IVE COOPERA TIVE COLLABORATING COMPETING COMPROMISING AVOIDING ACCOMODATING COOPERATIVENESS ASSERTIVENESS Fig. 2: Conflict-Handling Modes [3] Author Response Staff Response The Positive Impact 1 . We challenge each other, this keeps them aroused 2 . We talk and share ideas, this keeps them informed and creative 3 . We share gains and celebrate success 4 . We have “learning from error” environment 5 . We have “prove it to me” environment 6 . The work discussion doesn’t conquest the social life 7 . Our friendship doesn’t force us to accept low performance 8 . We believe in our values 9. We share pains equitably The Negative Impact 1. Staff are very loyal to the director, this affects their ability to work with any substitute 2. We help each other regardless the benefit to the work 3. We value our credo to the extent that we don’t want to change it under any circumstances 4. We are not exible with external changes 5. Staff are feeling insecure regarding their job Fig. 7: The Culture Impact Analysis Two Dimensions, Four Cultures low low high high Sociability Solidarity Networked Communal Mercenary Fragmented Fig. 1: G&J Double S Model [2] Fig. 3: T-P Leadership-Style Profile [4] Autocratic Leadership Shared Leadership High Morale Laissez-Faire Leadership High Morale 10 15 10 15 20 5 5 Low Medium High High Productivity Task-Oriented People-Oriented 100% 75% LOW 25% 0% MEDIUM HIGH PERCEN T ILE SCORE MODE RAW SCORE ACCOMMODATING 6 75% COMPETING 5 45% COMPROMISING 10 90% AVOIDING 4 22% COLLABORATING 5 17% Fig. 4: Author’s Preferred Conflict-handling Modes Fig. 5: Author’s Leadership-Style 10 15 10 15 20 5 5 Low Medium High Task-Oriented People-Oriented + Physical Space Communication Time Identity low low high high Sociability Solidarity Networked Communal Mercenary Fragmented Fig. 6: Author & Staff Responses To Culture Analysis = Fig. 8: The Staff Celebrating Their Win

Upload: hossam-elamir

Post on 15-Aug-2015

104 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: HSC poster1

Could The Leadership and Conflict Management StylesBe Translated into A Consistent Organisational Culture?

Hossam ElamirDepartment of Quality and Accreditation, Mubarak Al-Kabeer Hospital, MOH

MSc in Healthcare Management, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland AQ&m

II. Case Summary

The author’s conflict handling modes –by answering Conflict Mode Instrument- were compromising 90% and accommodating 75% (Fig. 4). Answering the Leadership Style Questionnaire by the author

resulted in a task-oriented score=20 and people-oriented score=16 (Fig. 5). The author and the eight department’s staff answered G&J tool. Staff’s main response for the first part was Communal

(Fig. 6). Their second part’s responses were communal. The author’s responses for both parts were Communal. Author and staff’s answers of the third and fourth parts identified nine +ve versus five

-ve aspects (Fig 7). In other words, the author’s leadership and conflict management styles were aligning with the perceived Communal culture and fit in perfectly as they solve the conflict between

“the heart” of sociability and “the mind” of solidarity. The staff responses for the analysis of their previous departments were not Communal, which means a new culture was established and maintained.

III. ConclusionsThe department’s founder (author) had a vision of what the department should be, and its small size made it easy to impose that vision on

all staff (Fig. 8) and embed his personality in the culture[1]. The high sociability and solidarity Communal strong culture was created by the

founder's balanced task and people-oriented leadership together with the medium assertive and cooperative compromising and low

assertive high cooperative accommodating conflict handling modes. This strong culture has a positive net impact.

IV. References1. Robbins SP, Judge TA. Organizational behavior. 15th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Pearson; 2013.

2. Goffee R, Jones G. The character of a corporation: how your company’s culture can make or break your business. 1st ed. UK; 1998.

3. Thomas KL, Kilman RH. Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument. Mountain View, CA, USA: CPP, Inc.; 1974.

4. Pfeiffer JW, Jones JE. A Handbook of Structured Experiences for Human Relations Training. Revised. CA, USA: ; 1974.

V. Acknowledgement and ContactsI would like to acknowledge the help provided by Dearbhla Casey, Former Programme Director at RCSI Institute of Leadership

For further information contact: Dr. Hossam Elamir, Head of Quality & Accreditation Department, MKH, MOH, Kuwait

Mobile: 00965-65198442 - E mail: [email protected]

Linkedin URL: kw.linkedin.com/pub/hossam-elamir/b2/97b/296

I. BackgroundCulture is a group personality resulted from people’s interactions over time and planted by the organisation founder’s effect.[1] A 2ry care hospital’s Quality department culture was assessed using Goffee

& Jones’ tool. Depending on levels of solidarity (task-based) and sociability (people-based), G&J present Double S Model that identify 4 cultures: Networked (high sociability, low solidarity), Communal

(high sociability & solidarity), Fragmented (low sociability & solidarity) and Mercenary (low sociability, high solidarity) (Fig. 1). The tool is composed of 4 analysis parts, the first two look at Physical

space, Time, Communication and Identity, while the second two assess the culture impact. Plotting person’s behaviour along 2 dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness identifies 5 conflict

handling modes: compromising, accommodating, competing, avoiding and collaborating (Fig. 2). A 3rd tool assessing the leadership style gives scores for task and people-oriented dimensions (Fig. 3).

UN

AS

SE

RT

IVE

AS

SE

RT

IVE

UNCOOPERATIVE COOPERATIVE

COLLABORATINGCOMPETING

COMPROMISING

AVOIDING ACCOMODATING

COOPERATIVENESS

ASS

ERTI

VEN

ESS

Fig. 2: Conflict-Handling Modes[3]

AuthorResponse

Staff Response

Th

e P

osi

tive

Imp

act

1. We challenge each other, this keeps them aroused

2. We talk and share ideas, this keeps them informed andcreative

3. We share gains and celebrate success

4. We have “learning from error” environment

5. We have “prove it to me” environment

6. The work discussion doesn’t conquest the social life

7. Our friendship doesn’t force us to accept lowperformance

8. We believe in our values

9. We share pains equitably

Th

e N

egat

ive

Imp

act

1. Staff are very loyal to the director, this affects their ability to work with any substitute

2. We help each other regardless the benefit to the work

3. We value our credo to the extent that we don’t want to change it under any circumstances

4. We are not flexible with external changes

5. Staff are feeling insecure regarding their job

Fig. 7: The Culture Impact Analysis

Two Dimensions, Four Cultures

lowlow high

high

Soci

abili

ty

Solidarity

Networked Communal

MercenaryFragmented

Fig. 1: G&J Double S Model[2] Fig. 3: T-P Leadership-Style Profile[4]

AutocraticLeadership

SharedLeadership

High Morale

Laissez-FaireLeadership

High Morale

10

15

10

15

20

55

Low

Medium

High

High Productivity

Task-Oriented People-Oriented

100%75%LOW

25%0%M EDIUM HIGH

PERCENTILE SCOREMODE RAWSCORE

ACCOMMODATING 6 75%

COMPETING 5 45%

COMPROMISING 10 90%

AVOIDING 4 22%

COLLABORATING 5 17%

Fig. 4: Author’s Preferred Conflict-handling Modes

Fig. 5: Author’s Leadership-Style

10

15

10

15

20

55

Low

Medium

High

Task-Oriented People-Oriented

+

Physical Space Communication Time Identity

lowlow high

high

Soci

abili

ty

Solidarity

Networked Communal

MercenaryFragmented

Fig. 6: Author & Staff Responses To Culture Analysis

=

Fig. 8: The Staff Celebrating Their Win