Career Development and Lifestyle Planning



Leading Health Care Organizations2 CreditsBU.555.610.XX[NOTE: Each section must have a separate syllabus.][Day & Time / ex: Monday, 6pm-9pm][Start & End Date / ex: 3/24/15-5/12/15][Semester / ex: Fall 2016][Location / ex: Washington, DC]Instructor[Full Name]Contact Information[Phone Number, (###) ###-####][Email Address]Office Hours[Day(s)/Times]Texts & Learning MaterialsThe following items should be purchased as a Harvard Business Publishing Coursepack at <<Link to HBP course site>>1. Case: Going flat (case# UV6499-PDF-ENG)2. Case: Jerry Sanders (both: case# 9-498-021 and multimedia case# 303058-HTM-ENG)3. Case: Paul Levy (case# 9-303-008)4. Book (optional): Duarte, N. HBR guide to persuasive presentations (Product # 11150H-PDF-ENG)You should also purchase the following book from Amazon or any other bookstore:5. Book: Kellogg, K. C. (2011). Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance in surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. You will need the following chapters from that book: Introduction, Chapters 1, 3, 5, and 6.Other readings below can be directly accessed through the E-Reserves tab in Blackboard:6. Pfeffer J., Sutton R. 2006. “Evidence-based management.” Harvard Business Review: Decision Making. January 2006. , product 298X7. McPhee, John. “Elicitation.” The New Yorker. April 7, 2014. (50–57)8. Larson, B. K., Citters, A. D., Kreindler, S. A., Carluzzo, K. L., Gbemudu, J., Fisher, E. S. (2012). Insights From Transformations Under Way At Four Brookings-Dartmouth Accountable Care Organization Pilot Sites. Health Affairs, 31(11) 9. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 136010. Burt, R. (1992). Chapter 2, The Social Structure of Competition. In N. Nohria & R. G. Eccles (Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action (pp. 57-91). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.11. Case: Caro, R. A. (1982). Chapters 31 and 32. In The Years Of Lyndon Johnson The path to Power. New York: Knopf. 12. Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 19(2), 120-134. 13. Van Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Lewis, C. C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 58–76) 14. Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2001). Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement. California Management Review, 43(4), 64-88. 15. Jill Lepore, “The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong.” The New Yorker, June 23, 2014Suggested readings (available through E-Reserves):16. Rebitzer, J. B., & Votruba, M.E. (2011). Organizational economics and physician practices.NBER Working Paper No. 17535. 17. Roberto M. Fernandez and Roman V. Galperin (2014), The Causal Status of Social Capital in Labor Markets, in Daniel J. Brass, Giuseppe (JOE) Labianca, Ajay Mehra, Daniel S. Halgin, Stephen P. Borgatti (ed.) Contemporary Perspectives on Organizational Social Networks (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Volume 40) Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 445 – 46218. Centola, Damon, Robb Willer, and Michael Macy. "The Emperor’s Dilemma: A Computational Model of Self‐Enforcing Norms." American Journal of Sociology 110.4 (2005): 1009-040 a5. 19. Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2009). The innovator's prescription: A disruptive solution for health care. New York: McGraw-Hill. Introduction + Chapter 4 “Disrupting the business model of the physician’s practice”Course Description This course introduces concepts and tools in the management and promotion of change in health care organizations. It covers basic concepts in team science and organizational development, and leadership strategies for creating diverse high performing inter-professional teams. It discusses the unique attributes of the health care workforce in relation to compensation and incentives, legal and compliance requirements, workforce planning and development and performance management. Finally, the course introduces the science and practice of patient safety, and process re-engineering in the context of change management.Prerequisite(s)None, although familiarity with health care delivery in the U.S. – which may come from taking an introductory course, or from working in the industry – is assumed.Learning ObjectivesAll Carey graduates are expected to demonstrate competence on four Learning Goals, operationalized in eight Learning Objectives. These learning goals and objectives are supported by the courses Carey offers. To view the complete list of Carey Business School’s general learning goals and objectives, visit the Teaching & Learning@Carey website. The learning objectives for this course are: Students will learn and apply core concepts and tools in health care management to develop integrated and innovative strategies to address current and emerging business problems.Students will understand the process of collecting and analyzing the “evidence” for the evidence-based management approach.Students will learn and apply the core theories of organizational strategy and leadership in the context of contemporary health care industry.Students will understand and apply basic concepts in social network analysis and theory as applied to organizational knowledge and power networks.Attendance Attendance and class participation are a large part of each student’s course grade (see Evaluation and Grading below). Students are expected to attend all scheduled class sessions. Failure to attend class will automatically result in a zero participation grade for that class. In addition, students incur grade penalties if missing more than two class sessions. Students should make every effort to notify the instructor of missing a class in advance.NOTE: late registration for class does not exempt a student from zero participation grade for missed sessions. Therefore late registration is highly discouraged.Assignments & RubricsAssignmentsHonor codeStudents will be asked to sign a statement that each test and assignment is their own work and they have abided by the honor code. Students are not allowed to use any electronic devices during in-class tests. Calculators will be provided if the instructor requires them for test taking. Students must seek permission from the instructor to leave the classroom during an in-class test. Test scripts must not be removed from the classroom during the test. Students should not share or discuss test questions outside of the class with anyone other than their classmates and only after they have taken the test.FormatAll written assignments must adhere to the following standards; failure to do so will automatically reduce the grade for the assignment:12-point Times New Roman font, double-spaced, with one-inch margins throughoutPage number at the bottom of each pageStudent(s) last name, first name, and assignment description/memo number (see below; in case of group assignments, include last names of each member) in the top margin of each pageWhen submitting a file electronically on Blackboard, the file name must be in the format Lastname_Firstname_AssignmentDescription.doc. PDF and MS Word file formats are accepted. It is the student’s responsibility to check that the submitted file is not corrupt and can be opened; otherwise the assignment is counted as not submitted.The text of the discussion question(s) addressed in the memo must be included in the memo.Case discussion memosThere are five case discussion memos in this course. Students are required to write and are graded for three memos. Students can choose to write any three of the five memos. If a student submits more than three memos, the best three grades for the memos will be used for the overall grade, but there will be no extra credit for the extra memos. The memos are graded on how well they convey the author’s point, how relevant and original the point is, and on whether the memo conforms to the standards above. Each memo can contribute a maximum of 3% to the final grade.Each memo should be posted by its author both to a designated thread in a Blackboard discussion forum (as plain text), and through the appropriate TurnItIn assignment submission link (as a PDF/Word file). That is, you will share your memo with the class, and will submit it to the instructor for grading.Team projectThe main hands-on component of this course is a multi-step team project that you will work on throughout the duration of the course. The description of each component is available in a separate document on Blackboard.Grade ComponentsAssignmentLearning ObjectivesWeightAttendance and participation in class discussionn/a16%Memos1, 2, 3, 4 9%Quiz 11, 2, 3, 410%Quiz 21, 2, 3, 410%Team video presentation1, 3 5%Evaluation of other micro-team presentations1 5%Team project report1, 2, 335%*Final presentation1, 310%Total100%* Note: Timely completion of intermediary steps of the project, like interview protocols and solicitation pitches, as described in the tentative course calendar below, is included in the total team project grade. Not completing these intermediary steps fully and on time negatively affects that grade. See component-specific rubrics on Blackboard for details. GradingThe grade of A is reserved for those who demonstrate extraordinarily excellent performance. The grade of A- is awarded only for excellent performance. The grade for very good/good performance in this course is a B+/B. The grades of D+, D, and D- are not awarded at the graduate level. Please refer to the Carey Business School’s Student Handbook for grade appeal information. Tentative Course Calendar**The instructors reserve the right to alter course content and/or adjust the pace to accommodate class progress. Students are responsible for keeping up with all adjustments to the course calendar.WeekContentReadingDue this week(by midnight before class session, unless indicated otherwise; see assignment descriptions for details)1Individual introductionsIntroduction to the course and the course projectGathering evidence for evidence-based management Pfeffer J., Sutton R. 2006. “Evidence-based management” (Harvard Business Publishing coursepack, or from )McPhee, John. “Elicitation”. The New Yorker, Apr. 7, 2014 How to Read a Case Study. Retrieved March 06, 2015, from survey (See Blackboard for the link) 1-minute Video Introduction Form Teams (instructions on Blackboard) 2Formal organizational structureReflecting internal vs. external forces in organizational structureIncentives and controlCase: Going flat (HBP coursepack, case UV6499-PDF-ENG)Discussion questions:What is a flat organization? What makes some organizations better suited for flat vs. hierarchical structure?What is the role of formal hierarchies in health care organizations? What advantages/challenges (non-) hierarchical structure present, specifically with respect to ACOs?Larson, B. K et al (2012). Insights From Transformations Under Way At Four Brookings-Dartmouth Accountable Care Organization Pilot Sites. Health Affairs, 31(11) Rebitzer, J. B., & Votruba, M.E. (2011). Organizational economics and physician practices. NBER Working Paper No. 17535. Case 1 memo/discussion, addressing one of the two discussion points on the left. Research plan (team roster and contract; list of organizations and individuals to interview; text of interview pitch and sample questions) 3Knowledge and the flow of information in social networksSocial capitalGranovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360Case: Jerry Sanders (HBP coursepack case# 9-498-021)Discussion questions:What were Sanders’ strategies in developing new ventures? What was his strategy for building networks of relationships?Would Sanders’ strategies for developing business ventures be likely to prove successful in the future (i.e., in the new venture San Francisco Scientific), or should he consider adapting his approach? If yes, in what way?Case 2 memo/discussion, addressing one of the discussion points on the left.Updated draft of the research plan – incorporate instructor’s feedback on the interview pitch and questions.4Power networksCentrality, brokerage and constraintSocial networks and informal organizationBurt, R.S. 1992. “The Social Structure of Competition.” pp. 57-91 in Nohria, N. and R. Eccles, Networks and Organizations Case: Caro, R. A. (1982). Chapters 31 and 32. In The Years Of Lyndon Johnson The path to Power. New York: Knopf.Discussion questions:Compare and contrast Jerry Sanders’ (see previous session) and LBJ’s use of their respective social networks. What were their goals? How did they go about accomplishing them?Describe three specific instances of brokerage in Caro’s chapters. For each instance: what were the information and control benefits for LBJ?Case 3 memo/discussion, addressing one of the two discussion questions on the left.A 2-minute video presentation by your team on your secondary data analysis and industry sector background.5Quiz 1Feedback on other teams’ presentationsIntroduction to organizational cultureVan Maanen, J. (1991). The smile factory: Work at Disneyland. In P. J. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Lewis, C. C. Lundberg & J. Martin (Eds.), Reframing organizational culture (pp. 58–76) Discussion question:How does “The smile factory” article apply to health care organizations? Give three specific examples from the article and propose clear parallels in HCOs. What conclusions can we draw for HCOs?Kellogg, K. C. (2011). Introduction. In Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance in surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Cannon, R.D., Witherspoon, R. 2005. “Actionable feedback: unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement.” Academy of Management Perspectives. Vol. 19. No 2. pp. 120-134. Case 4 memo/discussion, addressing the question on the left.Short team report on industry sector. (A part of the final report – see assignment instructions.)Feedback on two other teams’ presentations (discussion board).6Organizational culture and organizational changeKellogg, K. C. (2011). Chapters 1, 3, 5, and 6. In Challenging operations: Medical reform and resistance in surgery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Discussion questions:Why was the change in surgical residency so hard to implement? What was at the root of the resistance? How does this generalize beyond surgery, to other organizations and industries? Under what conditions should we expect similar dynamics?What key structural feature(s) of the organization of work allowed for change in two hospitals, but not the third one? If that structural aspect is the necessary component for successful change, how can it be used in contexts other than surgery?Case 5 memo/discussion, addressing one of the two discussion questions on the left.A 1-2 page description of findings from the interview(s). A one-page summary of findings and proposed solution (i.e., the outline of the main points in the final report).7Quiz 2Organization’s environmentIndustry-level processesCase: Paul Levy (HBP coursepack case# 9-303-008) Important: Read the case introduction first, and then watch at least the following videos:In the calendar view, watch all items for the first three months of the timeline (Nov. – Jan.)In “Themes” view (to get there, click on the link in the upper right corner of the case window), see everything under “The change process”Discussion questions:How would you describe the situation Levy inherited at the BIDMC? What challenges did he face? Why did previous turnaround efforts fail? How did Levy’s strategy reflect lessons from the organization’s past?What, if anything, was distinctive about the way Levy formulated, announced, and implemented the recovery plan? How did he overcome resistance?Repenning, N. P., & Sterman, J. D. (2001). Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement. California Management Review, 43(4), 64-88.Case 6 memo/discussion, addressing one of the two discussion questions on the left.“Almost finished” final project report (without the cross-industry-sector discussions).8Evaluating theories in managementChristensen’s presentation based on the book: , C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2009). The innovator's prescription: A disruptive solution for health care. New York: McGraw-Hill. Introduction + Chapter 4 “Disrupting the business model of the physician’s practiceJill Lepore, “The Disruption Machine: What the gospel of innovation gets wrong.” The New Yorker, June 23, 2014Discussion questions:What is the theoretical model at the core of Christensen’s theory? State it formally. How would you test the model/theory? What data would you need? What results would support or falsify the theory?Does the theory fit some industries better than others? What aspects of Christensen’s theory fit health care better, and what aspects don’t quite fit? What is the utility of the theory for current executives of HCOs?Duarte, N. 2012 HBR guide to persuasive presentations (HBP coursepack Product # 11150H-PDF-ENG)Case 7 memo/discussion, addressing one of the two discussion questions on the left (Multiple due dates throughout the week – final posts due [enter date here], 11:59pm).Final project report. Due [enter date here], 11:59pmCarey Business School Policies and General InformationBlackboard SiteA Blackboard course site is set up for this course. Each student is expected to check the site throughout the semester as Blackboard will be the primary venue for outside classroom communications between the instructors and the students. Students can access the course site at . Support for Blackboard is available at 1-866-669-6138.Course EvaluationAs a research and learning community, the Carey Business School is committed to continuous improvement. The faculty strongly encourages students to provide complete and honest feedback for this course. Please take this activity seriously; we depend on your feedback to help us improve. Information on how to complete the evaluation will be provided toward the end of the course.Disability ServicesJohns Hopkins University and the Carey Business School are committed to making all academic programs, support services, and facilities accessible. To determine eligibility for accommodations, please contact the Disability Services Office at time of admission and allow at least four weeks prior to the beginning of the first class meeting. Students should contact Priscilla Mint in the Disability Services Office by phone at 410-234-9243, by fax at 443-529-1552, or by email. Honor Code/Code of ConductAll students are expected to view the Carey Business School Honor Code/Code of Conduct tutorial and submit their pledge online.?Students who fail to complete and submit the pledge will have a registrar’s hold on their account. Please contact the student services office via email if you have any questions.Students are not allowed to use any electronic devices during in-class tests. Calculators will be provided if the instructor requires them for test taking. Students must seek permission from the instructor to leave the classroom during an in-class test. Test scripts must not be removed from the classroom during the test.Other Important Academic Policies and ServicesStudents are strongly encouraged to consult the Carey Business School’s Student Handbook and Academic Catalog and Student Resources for information regarding the following items:Statement of Diversity and InclusionStudent Success CenterInclement Weather PolicyCopyright StatementUnless explicitly allowed by the instructor, course materials, class discussions, and examinations are created for and expected to be used by class participants only.?The recording and rebroadcasting of such material, by any means, is forbidden. Violations are subject to sanctions under the Honor Code. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download