Leading change in the general surgery unit

Leading change in the general surgery unit
A keen look at the happenings in the hospital unit reveals that there are many problems. The issues could have a classification into the major and minor ones. Although some of the major problems in the hospital are beyond the abilities of Barbara in her capacity, it is worth noting that; there some issues which she can address. Some of those major issues which Barbara can address in her capacity include; lack of teamwork and collaboration among the workers. Such an issue has origin from the orientation of the culture.
However, Barbara, with her managerial skills can bring to the attention of the staff, the need to have teamwork and collaboration for the benefit of everyone. There is also the problem of the staff having much attention on the administration issues rather focusing on the patients. Barbara, being the administrator could change this problem by shifting the focus to the patient satisfaction, not only from the other staff but also starting with herself, in a bid to set a good example. There is also the problem of favoritism which is common in the hospital unit. Barbara could change this attitude through the embrace of fairness in the distribution of duties and responsibilities. Harbor of vices in an organization make it hard to have positive forward moves, (Hernandez Bark, Escartín, Schuh & Dick, 2016).
Credibility and power
Barbara, in her capacity as the hospital unit administrator has got some powers. Unlike the other leaders in the hospital unit, Barbara has a low kind of power.

This view emanates from the considerations that; Barbara is allowing the subordinates to give out their views in the efforts of running the hospital. She is cultivating a close relationship with the employees as a leader and does not shun the subordinates from questioning what she is doing.
The credibility for Barbara is much high, and she is definitely a right choice for this job. The assertions emanate from the considerations of the issues which have been ailing the unit, as aired by the subordinate staff, upon inquiry by Barbara. There has been a lack of the right communication from the leadership to the staff on the ground, yet Barbara, upon her selection; she has already started initiating a dialogue. Barbara, through her initiative of getting information from the staff, brings the realization that; there has been much attendance to machines as opposed to the attendance to patients. She, therefore, embarks on the efforts of bringing the focus to the patient needs rather than the machines. In a normal business setting, there has to be a focus on the customers if there ought to be the realization of profitability, (Bedi, Alpaslan & Green, 2016). In the hospital setting, the equivalent of the customers is the patients. The focus, therefore, has to be on the patients, failure to which there would be no achievement of the stipulated goals.
Changes
Regarding the issues ailing the hospital unit headed by Barbara, it is clear that there is a need for the embrace of change. The change has to align to theory O, whereby; there is recognition of the different stakeholders. The theory points to shift in focus, from economic gains of the shareholders to the capacity building and satisfaction of every stakeholder in the involvement. Under the theory O, there would be much focus on the satisfaction and capacity building of the nurses so that in turn, they offer the right kind of services to the patients. Such attainments are only possible through the embrace of kinds of leadership that allows for dialogue between the leaders and the subordinates, such as Barbara is demonstrating.
The change is incremental-transitional-transformational; which is a positive element for the situation of the unit. There is the incremental aspect in that there would be an extension of the capacity of the nurses especially through creating the channels of communication to the management. There would be a transition from the old method of working whereby the focus was on machines, to the much consideration of the patients as the focal points of the venture. Such a change would yield transformation through the change of mindsets especially regarding leadership and power, through the enactment of the low power that enables interaction of the subordinates with the management. There would also be a transformation in the attitude of the patients as they would have much trust with the nurses for having more attention on them than on the machines as it used to be there before.
The change here, under the guidance of theory O, would be reactive. These assertions emanate from the considerations that; the changes are in response to a situation that was in existence, rather than anticipating for the future. Many people harbor the ideas that reactive modes are not right in management, (Predișcan, Roiban & Biriescu, 2016). However, it is essential to note that; switching the leadership ideologies from reactive to proactive is healthy rather than keeping one line of orientation. Since Barbara got the situation being not in the right direction, it is essential to embrace the reactive model for the moment before focusing on the proactive model for other issues.
If I were an outside consultant, I would use the logical supporting leadership. In the leadership, there would engagement of every stakeholder in bringing in their ideas in the right way in which they think there could be the embrace of the right change especially in their area of work. Such kind of leadership does not entail a blind implementation of the suggestions of the staff; rather there is consideration of the necessity of the suggestion and the implication of its implementation, (Xu, Caldwell, Glasper & Guevara, 2015).
Action plan
Action timeline
Seeking consultants support immediately
Seeking the CEO support immediately
Conducting interviews One month
Internal skill building 3 months
External skill building 6 months
Construction of reward system 6 months
Restructure the firm One year
Among the individual nurses in the case study, the most resistant would be Louise. These views emanate from the considerations of the utterances of this nurse. Although she is valid in the assertions concerning giving more attention to machines than to patients, there is a presentation of resistance in the aspect of collaborating with other entities in the unit. Louise is complaining about the young nurses and the PCAs asking for her assistance while she regards herself as being busy with her work. This assertion presents a resistant attitude in the spirit of teamwork and collaboration. Such considerations do not imply that the likes of Louise would get exclusion in the programs of collaboration; rather there would just be a need for much effort in convincing them over the matter.
The less resistant nurse would be Jennifer. These regards emanate from the consideration of her assertions that her initiatives to advance herself in education concerning the machines are self-driven. Such heights show that Jennifer is a self-driven staff who would be less resistant.
References
Bedi, A., Alpaslan, C., & Green, S. (2016). A Meta-analytic Review of Ethical Leadership Outcomes and Moderators. Journal Of Business Ethics, 139(3), 517-536. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2625-1
Hernandez Bark, A., Escartín, J., Schuh, S., & Dick, R. (2016). Who Leads More and Why? A Mediation Model from Gender to Leadership Role Occupancy. Journal Of Business Ethics, 139(3), 473-483. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2642-0
Predișcan, M., Roiban, R. N., & Biriescu, S. (2016). The reasons why sometimes the romanian processes of organizational change fail. Annals Of The University Of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 25(1), 959-967.
Xu, F., Caldwell, C., Glasper, K., & Guevara, L. (2015). Leadership roles and transformative duties – preliminary research. Journal Of Management Development, 34(9), 1061-1072.