Stakeholder Groups
The involvement of stakeholders in evidence-based policy decision making has gained traction as an accepted in patient-centered care, outcome research practices, and informing clinical practice and policies. Stakeholder refers to a person, persons (group), or organization affected or is involved in a course of action. In the case of Dr. Breeze and the San Marcos Community Mental Health Center, several stakeholders are involved in a battle for control of the institution and policies that guide its practices. In gaining support, most of the groups in the institution have partnered with outside stakeholders to gain support for their cause. The first stakeholder groups are traditionalists led by Dr. Jones. The second stakeholder group is the insurgents who are led by Dr. Smith. The Advocates for responsible change are the third stakeholder group and are led by Dr. Virtue. The fourth group is the agency board of management. The fifth and final stakeholders and are made of the consumer board.
Historical and Policy Rationale as To Why Dr. Breeze was Hired
The nonconventional values and ideology espoused by Dr. Breeze as a candidate during the interview process led to his hiring, despite the Boardboard’s reservations. Conservative policies and theories have widely been regarded as designed to subordinate people’s minds to a hierarchical social order that is dominated by an aristocracy. The Board, supported by Dr Sedgwick, approved his hiring because he was perceived as a nonconventional and nontraditional candidate, which is reference to a progressive and liberal individual. This would then mean that the policies enacted under his guidance would be more progressive. Historically, the belief that continuity of experience offers a guide to policy as has been argued by conservatives has been proven to be inaccurate. Conservatives have tended to adhere to custom, convention and continuity, yet the Board wanted a person with new ideas to be implemented in running the facility.
Fired, retained, or Voted With Complete Confidence? Stakeholder Opinion
The stakeholder group that wants Dr. Breeze fired are the traditionalists. The traditionalists prefer the conventional ways that had been previously used in the facility as led by Dr Sedgwick. The use of nonconventional ways has deprived them of the opportunity to present their own ideas for running and making policies in the facility. The insurgents, as a stakeholder group, want Dr Breeze to be voted in with complete confidence. They felt that the various reforms that Dr Breeze had rolled out would work since they were innovative. As young activist professionals and community who had been hired and presented with an opportunity by Dr Breeze, they felt that he deserved to be given an opportunity to continue with the reforms he had started. Advocates for responsible change are the third stakeholder group and they prefer that Dr Breeze be retained but after curtailing some of his powers. They feel that while Dr Breeze’s innovations are welcome and good for the facility, the supervisory system was to be restored to return professional’s authority and prestige in the agency.
Types of Changes He Initiated
The abolishment of the supervisory system and the use of a flexible peer-consultation system was a demonstration of Dr. Breeze’s adoption of non-conservative ways and policies in running the agency. In responding to modernity and its challenges, he adopts liberal policies and practices that allow for new ideas and new things into the agency. The policy orientation adopted by Dr Breeze involved social work perspectives such as the belief in the possibility of change, a passion for social justice and empowerment, systems perspective and the ability to form common ground. His instruction to the staff that he wanted reports on the service and disposition of all cases that involved with a racial or ethnic minority indicated that he was aware of disparity in advancing quality healthcare to this racial groups. While a conservative might have argued that mental services were equally offered to all individuals who visited the facility, Dr Breeze was cognizant of the fact that biases could influence case management resulting in poor patient outcomes in racial minorities. This was a demonstration of his progressive and liberal changes.
Reactions of Each Stakeholder Group
The traditionals reacted to Dr Breeze new unconventional ways by resisting them and forming a group of individuals that felt the same way. They made a decision to to take their case to other agencies and to local civic leaders and then presenting their case to the agency board with the support of these other groups. The reaction of the traditionals was inappropriate because they did not engage in discussions with other unlike minded staff in the organization. While their arguments may have been warranted, they should have discussed their misgiving first with Dr Breeze and the agency board to develop a working ground. The insurgents on the other hand developed a hard-line stance where they were ready to ask for termination of federal and state funds if Dr Breeze was fired. This was also inappropriate since they did not engage the traditionals who may have had valid arguments as to why they were opposed to Dr Breeze way of running the agency. The advocates for responsible change reacted by accepting the most of the new changes made but were against those that deprived the ‘professionals’ with their former authority and privilege. This was an appropriate response because wholesome changes may have destabilized the agency. The authority and prestige that was held by these professionals resulted from experience that the careerists lacked. This was demonstrated in the death of patient that was being cared for by a ‘careerist.’ Their argument was therefore warranted.
Stance Taken In Respect to the Stakeholder Groups Positions
I am in agreement with the advocates for responsible change. In lieu of the experience that is held by these professionals and considering the sensitive nature of assignments at the facility, the supervisory system that gave this professionals authority was appropriate. The adoption of Dr Breeze’s progressive ideas and the supervisory system would be an appropriate mix for the agency. I disagree with the traditionalists who feel that Dr Breeze should be fired. This is because most of the new ideas are good and suited for delivering proper social work in giving quality mental care. They have also not explained which ideas are working and those that are not, which would facilitate fruitful discussion at forming better policies at the agency. I am also in disagreement with the insurgent’s position that wants termination of state and federal funding to the agency in the event that Dr Breeze is fired. This goes against the grain of social work that requires stakeholder to always put their roles and duties in caring for the society in the forefront. Proper policy practice requires engagement, communication, problem solving, negotiating, negotiating and collaborating skills. Both the insurgents and traditionalists did not apply this skills which makes me to be in disagreement with their positions.
Main Responsibility of Each Stakeholder Group
The main responsibility of the traditionals is to demonstrate that the nonconventional reforms by Dr Breeze are now working and are interfering with the agencies mandate of providing mental healthcare. The main responsibility of the insurgents is to ensure that Dr Breeze is retained by demonstrating that his reforms are effective and has improved efficacy of care at the institution. The main responsibility of the advocates for responsible change is to ensure that they convince the Board that the supervisory system was necessary and effective, and could be used with the other reforms that had been initiated by Dr Breeze. The responsibility of the Board is to listen to evidence presented by all sides to get an understanding of the contentious issue and make a decision on the way forward.
Dr Breeze: The Good and The Bad
Dr Breeze has adopted new and innovative reforms in the agency. His interest in cases involving racial and ethnic minorities is especially commendable since they have been disparities to advancing quality mental care to these groups. He is also concerned on the handling of mentally ill individuals by police, which demonstrates that he believes in individual dignity and patient respect despite the conditions they have. His crisis oriented management of cases is also a good practice to ensure cases are solved and managed in the short term, which ensures individuals get immediate care that prevents deterioration of patient condition when placed on waiting lists.
However, Dr Breeze also has used reforms that may have negative impact. The supervisory system for instance was a good system that ensured experienced professionals had authority on the handling of cases. This could also offer the ‘careerists’ an opportunity to learn from the experienced professionals. He has also not engaged his staff in collaborative and problem solving discussions to identify problems or reservations held by different members of the staff. This in particular has irked the traditionals who feel that their ideas have not been incorporated in running the agency.
What to Do If I Am Dr Breeze
Proper policy practices requires engagement, communication, problem solving, negotiating, negotiating and collaborating skills. Engaging the different stakeholder groups would enable Dr Breeze to identify contentious issues and how to correct them. In respect to the stakeholder groups, I would side with the advocates for responsible change. This is because their arguments are valid and this provides a middle ground for balancing conservative and non-conservative ways of running the organization. Some traditional practices like the supervisory system are advantageous and when coupled with the new and progressive practices, better patient outcomes can be achieved.