Directional Strategies Report

Part 3 of 5

GRADING RUBRIC MUST BE FOLLOWED

ANY OUTSIDE RESOURCES MUST BE WITHIN 5 YEARS OLD

Create a 3–5-page directional strategy report, as if you were preparing to present your assessment to a representative panel of employee stakeholders of a health care organization.

Questions to Consider:

• What are the major categories of employee stakeholders in a health care organization of your choosing (such as executives, senior management, middle management, caregivers, maintenance, administrative support personnel, volunteers)?
• What role does the board of directors play in your health care organization?
• What are the important elements of an effective board of directors?
• What is the process your organization uses to select members?
  • How effective is that process?
• What are industry best practices for selecting board members for a health care organization?
• How well do your organization’s strategies align with its published vision, mission, and values?
• How does this organization’s environment support or hinder its alignment with its vision, mission, and values?

Assessments 1 and 2 must be completed before beginning this assessment.

Analyze the relevance of the organization’s directional strategy, including its vision, mission, values, and organizational culture. The goal is to focus upon application of the concepts and new insight. Keep it brief and substantive. Note: Feel free to construct images/diagrams to summarize information where appropriate (for example, TOWS matrix…).

Complete the following:

• Review the mission, vision, and values statements of your health care organization.
• Examine how well each statement addresses the components of a directional strategy.
• Analyze the gap between the desired outcome and the actual state of the current environment.
• Analyze the organization’s directional strategy, including its vision, mission, and values.
• Examine the strategic “fit.”
  • Does the directional strategy fit the environment?
  • Is the organization headed in the right direction given the environmental assessment?
  • Does growth make sense right now or does maintaining the status quo or even contraction make better sense?
• Recommend changes you would make to ensure a foundation necessary for the current structure and strategies of the organization. Note: Support your recommendations with relevant resources from the literature.

By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:

• Competency 1: Analyze organizational structure, design, culture, and climate in relation to environmental forces.
  • Analyze an organization’s mission, vision, and values statements in terms of directional strategies.
  • Analyze the gap between the desired outcome and the actual state of the current environment.
• Competency 3: Recommend an organizational structure and design to optimize a strategic plan.
  • Examine organizational ethics as expressed in mission, vision, and value statements, and its relationship to health care strategy.
  • Propose changes to vision, mission, and values statements that align organizational structure and strategies.
• Competency 4: Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and consistent with expectations for professionals in health care administration.
  • Write in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner, supporting conclusions with relevant evidence.
  • Follow current APA guidelines for format and style.

Resources:

Organizational Ethics and Strategic Planning

These resources and articles help identify the decision-making process, considering mission, values, and ethics in the strategic planning process.

• Ginter, P. M., Duncan, W. J., & Swayne, L. E. (2013). Strategic management of health care organizations (7th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Kotalik, J., Covino, C., Doucette, N., Henderson, S., Langlois, M., McDaid, K., & Pedri, L. M. (2014). Framework for ethical decision-making based on mission, vision and values of the institution. HEC Forum, 26(2), 125–133.
• Kronenburg, M. A. (2014). Evaluating important healthcare management competency areas and preparation for healthcare reforms. International Journal of Business and Public Administration, 11(1), 31–40.
• Maritan, C. A., & Lee, G. K. (2017). Resource allocation and strategy. Journal of Management, 43(8), 2411–2420.
• Newhouse, J. J., & Balotsky, E. R. (2013). Factors motivating hospital CEOs to commit to ethical integration in their institutions: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics, 10(2), 46–54.
• Scott, B. C. (2015). Hospital boards—Why quality and safety matter. Physician Leadership Journal, 2(1), 62–64.

These articles help identify the decision-making process and directional strategies for strategic planning.

• Kukreja, D. (2013). Strategic planning: A roadmap to success. Retrieved from http://iveybusinessjournal.com/publication/strateg…
• Parsons Miller, S. (2016). Directional strategies in the development of strategy for a healthcare organization. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/directional-strateg…
• Bradley, J. (2016). Operational versus functional level strategy. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/operational-versus-…
• Johnson, S. (2015). The triangle of corporate strategy. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/triangle-corporate-…
• Wolf, C., & Floyd, S. W. (2017). Strategic planning research: Toward a theory-driven agenda. Journal of Management, 43(6), 1754–1788.

DUE DATE: Wed, 9/19/18

POINTS POSSIBLE: 250

I attached previous research paper. You will need to write this part of recommendation and implementation and update the research paper. Also, adjust whats needed as per the feedback.Thank you

DELIVERABLE LENGTH: New content: 1,000 to 2,000 words Total Overall Content – 5,000 to 10,000 words

Analyze your previous submissions, and make changes as necessary to the final paper to be prepared this week. Continue development of the project or research with an abstract and proposed implementation strategy. This is the last and final section of the Key Assignment and should bring together all aspects of the project or research in one cohesive paper. Revise previous sections so that the entire document flows and has a strong introduction and conclusion.

For this assignment, you will add an abstract and proposed implementation to your research paper. Finally, you will further refine the report and produce the Final Draft version. Updates may be based on peer and instructor feedback.

The project deliverables are the following:

• Update the research document’s title page with a new date and project name.
• Update previously completed sections based on the instructor’s feedback.
• Management Research Analysis and Synthesis Document
  • Review the entire document for any changes and improvements you would like to make.
  • Ensure that this final version of the document is sufficiently detailed to fully meet the assignment requirements for each part of the course.
  • Any previous instructor feedback should be addressed with appropriate changes.
• New Content:
  • Abstract and Proposed Implementation of the Solution
    • Develop and incorporate an abstract into the final draft of the research paper.
    • Produce a final proposed plan for implementation of the solution.
• Be sure to update your table of contents before submission.
• Name the document “yourname_MGMT659_IP5.doc.”

Please write a 200 words discussion paragraph around the description below and a 150 words response or comment of the world file. Thank you.

We are analyzing the relationship between the state and rezoning this week. It can be argued that the relationship between the state and rezoning is a supportive relationship to each other. The literature on state formation is vast; we will not be mapping out different theoretical arguments on state formation here. We will use a very narrow definition of the state: the state is an instrument to protect, reproduce, and represent the interest of the capitalist class. We will also use a restricted definition of rezoning and will discuss rezoning only in the context of New York City. As provided by Angotti, we will define rezoning as the Zoning Resolution that controls: “how land may be used (either for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, or a combination of these); how much can be built on the land (mainly through a formula that sets a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) the built floor area divided by the total land area); ad how much land must remain unbuilt.” The relationship between the state and rezoning is: the state through its institutions carry out rezoning in order to protect, reproduce and represent the interest of the capitalist class; likewise, by being protected, reproduced and represented, the capitalist class acquires a political character. The relationship is supportive in such a way. We will use this definition for the following discussion.

Hackworth and Smith: the authors outlined three waves of gentrification. Each wave of gentrification has a distinctive character. However, the trend of the development of gentrification is that the state has been becoming involved in directly organizing gentrification in several areas of New York City – particularly during the last two waves. This pattern can be seen in areas of Clinton, Long Island City and DUMBO. The argument for state intervention is: the federal government (since Reagan) had been reducing federal redistribution of resources to local government; as a response, local state had to come up with ways to increase tax dollars; one way to do so was to intensify gentrification and make alliances with capital, but subsequently, capital demanded city governments to “maintain a businesslike ledger sheet.” “With the decline in federal outlays to cities, the need to borrow funds for redevelopment has increased during the third-wave. In order to retain the fiscal viability necessary to keep receiving such loans, many cities have, more unabashedly than in the past, turned to the attraction and retention of the middle lass to increase tax revenue” (p.470; in Hackworth and Smith). New York City became supportive of gentrification as a result.

DePaolo and Morse: residents and businesses felt the developmental pressures in Williamsburg/Greenpoint. They fought and created community-based plans in 2001 to protect the neighborhood. The city indeed official adopted the plans, which recommended “increasing the availability of low-rise affordable housing, improving access to open space and the waterfront, promoting non-polluting industry, and reducing the concentration of noxious waste facilities.” The community did not want luxury high-rise towers on the waterfront. Few years later, the city launched its own rezoning plan that promoted high density residential development. In the 2005 Williamsburg rezoning intensified gentrification. Three elements to this rezoning: “residential uses were permitted in formerly industrial areas, buildings with significantly larger height and bulk were allowed, particularly on the waterfront, and new “mix-use” zones were introduced, which permitted either industrial or residential uses in the formerly industrial zones” (p.78; DePaolo and Morse). As a result of the rezoning, new upscale residential development came and there had been a loss of affordable housing. The Latino population in Williamsburg (18% decrease) was displaced and was replaced by a 44% increase of white population. Industrial employments also dropped.

Stein: Chinatown, Lower East Side and East Village are all within the boundaries of Community Board 3. However, in 2008, NYC rezoned East Village which is predominantly white and wealthy neighborhood by excluding Chinatown and the Lower East Side, which are predominantly low-income and with a mix of Latino, Asian, Black and poor White communities. The 2008 rezoning protected the white and rich areas of EV by restricting the height limits of the areas. Big and tall buildings could not be built in the area. However, this racist exclusion pushed developments into Chinatown and the Lower East Side. Since 2008, the communities across the area have been facing displacement. Chinatown/LES saw a boom of hotels and mega-towers being proposed along the waterfront – with one that is about to be completed. The working class communities from Chinatown and the LES came together and created the Chinatown Working Group (CWG) rezoning plan; the plan calls for height restriction that EV had. The communities want equality and the same protections that the wealthy white communities had since 2008. However, the City called CWG too ambiguous and refused to implement the plan. The City perpetuated the racist treatment started in 2008; racist impacts to the communities was created by Mayor Bloomberg and has been transferred and perpetuated by Mayor de Blasio who claims to be progressive.

Sites: Sites’ argument is different from the previous three arguments. In the same context of federal budget cuts, local government was forced to create tax revenues. NYC held a number of properties in the LES area and wanted to auction them off. This triggered a resistance against privatization. There were three tendencies among the organizations that fought against gentrification: advocacy and planning, tenants organizing and direct housing provision. These three tendencies could interact with each other in the period of 1980-1995. This period is divided into three phases: 1980-1985, 1985-1990 and 1990-1995. The first phase is called “saving the neighborhood.” This is when organizations came together with tactical differences and tried to stop displacement in the area. The second phase is characterized by “defending the neighborhood.” It was no longer the city that is the target of various strategies but the neighborhood is the target – not to be eliminated (of course) but to be “defended.” This created the problem of competition of available city-owned properties (to be developed by non-profit organizations). The third phase could be an intensification of the competition. The organizations that tried to stop displacement were then competing with each other to control the lands of LES; they wanted to develop the city-owned properties and competed for city contracts. The aim was to build affordable housing. However, as Sites highlighted, the “affordable housing” builders ended up supporting the City to evict squatters. Therefore, the argument is not on the State’s direct involvement in organizing gentrification; the state selectively promoted and supported local community organizations that could support compromises in low-income housing development and evictions. In other words, the state manipulated the organizations to focus gentrification at a neighborhood level (to acquire land and city-owned properties) and pushed the same organizations to not to create strategies that target the state.

This week’s discussion will be based on the above arguments and the required films. Your responses should be referencing the assigned videos.

Why are there mega-towers at the LES waterfront? Why the Chinatown tenants were being pushed out? What is the role of the state in the gentrification of Spanish Harlem and Williamsburg? (In other words, what did the City do in Spanish Harlem and Williamsburg in order to create gentrification?)

Video links:

Gut Renovation: Gentrification in Williamsburg

http://binghamton.kanopystreaming.com/video/gut-renovation

East Village Rezoning (David Tieu Narrated)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw4dJs7sa58

83-85 Bowery, Manhattan Chinatown

https://vimeo.com/229398210

Towers on the Waterfront

https://vimeo.com/231275193

Whose Barrio: Gentrification of Spanish Harlem

http://binghamton.kanopystreaming.com/video/whose-…

The U.S. conflict in Vietnam lasted throughout three American presidencies. The original goal was to contain communism and keep its principles out of South Vietnam. Initially, U.S. soldiers were sent to Vietnam as military advisors to the South Vietnamese during the Kennedy administration. The conflict escalated during the Johnson administration and more U.S. troops were sent into active battles. It was not until the Nixon administration that U.S. troops were pulled out of Vietnam. Consider Kennedy’s reasons for sending military advisors to Vietnam, Johnson’s reasons for escalating war and Nixon’s reasons for pulling the U.S. out of Vietnam? Each administration had strategic political and military objectives.

Based on the United States government’s political and military objectives, do you think the Vietnam War was considered a success? Did the U.S. and South Vietnam win the war?

In an essay of approximately 500 words, give reasons either for or against the belief that it was a success. Your essay should include reference to the reasons (both military and political) that each president decided to increase or decrease U.S. involvement in the conflict.

Feel free to use a search information to find more opinions about whether or not the U.S. was successful in Vietnam. Use key words such as: United States, win, Vietnam, success. The final opinion must be your own.