Chapter 4 Agency in Policy Turmoil pgs. 123-124 Read the case example entitled “Agency in Policy Turmoil” by Samuel Taylor in Chapter 4 of the 4th edition of BECOMING AN EFFECTIVE POLICY ADVOCATE (pp. 123-124). Assess Dr. Breeze’s skill in applying or using 4 skills to accomplish one or more of the six policy tasks. (You may find that the case does not give enough information for you to evaluate Dr. Breeze in every task or skill, but use the available content in the case to make a preliminary estimate.)
6 Policy Tasks
Agenda Building
Problem Analyzing
Proposal Writing
Proposal Enacting
Policy Implementing
Policy Assessing
4 Policy Skills
Analytical
Political
Interactional
Value Clarifying
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In this case, Dr. Breeze built an "non-traditional" agenda that applied to both the mental health patients and the staff members of the San Marcos Community Mental Health Center. He used the tasks of problem analyzing by realizing that there was a problem with the methods that the original staff used such as long-term therapy, supervisions and he suspected that a few of the staff members were letting the client's race or ethnicity get in the way of them being able to provide adequate services and case management. He proposed that the long-term therapy, long waiting lists,and supervison areas were unecessary. He implemented an advisory board that consisted of people from the community, extended staff hours, and questioned the chief of police aboutt the way emotionally ill people were being handled. I believe that Dr. Breeze was trying to implement "responsible change" within the center. He wanted to invent ideas, he felt would be beneficial to the patients.
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to say that Dr. Breeze in this case was very out of line. Although he was taking the place of a director he should have spoke with others to compromise with their ideas. Dr. Breeze used a non traditional appraoch to establish is goals. He eliminated everything old that he thought wasnt effective and gave new ideas. As he changed somethings he should have gotten the staff's opinion as well. The office became divided. "Respnosible change" didnt like Dr. Breeze changes and they advocated for them to get Dr. Breeze fired because they didnt like the way he was changing things. He used policy analyzing because he realized that the old traditions were not effective and wanted to try new ones. He implemented that they change their work hours to make his methods more effective.
ReplyDeleteA skill that he used was value clarifying he wanted to know about every client you ws of the ethnic minority because he thought the staff were allowing biases to influence case management.
In conclusion he should have assesed the center more before making so many changes that would affect everyone.
Non-traditional is the methods that Dr. Breeze choose to use in this reading. Perhaps taking more time out to hear others and understand where they were coming from would have resulted in a different outcome. Although a director, listening to others would have only strengthened his ideas. I like the fact that he came up with innovative ideas that were refreshing. On the other hand, perhaps notifying others by announcing his ideas first, would have been a better tack tic. By doing this no individual would have been caught off guard due to a lack of knowledge. Due to Dr. Breeze not doing this, (i feel) the office then became divided. After the division, they then baned together to eliminate the problem (the problem being Dr. Breeze). Perhaps if he used the group to his advantage, they could have worked together as a team and managed to get a task accomplished together. In conclusion the Dr. should have been more inclusive of the group. By not taking advantage of those around him, he jeopardized his integrity and essentially his work position. I do believe that he had great ideas and was an extremely knowledgeable individual, I just believe that he should have went about his ideas in a different fashion.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Dr. Breeze adequately used any of the four policy skills to accomplish any of the six policy tasks. He did not use Analytical skills because he did not properly analyze the current operation methods at the San Marcos Community Mental Health Center. He based his opinion of needed changes on experience and personal choice. He did not use Political skills because he engaged in an argument with the Chief of Police. Also, Dr. Breeze failed to attempt to befriend or gain the respect of the staff. In addition, the article says nothing about him addressing the Board or the media after he was publicly blamed for the client's suicide. Dr. Breeze showed no Interactional skills once taking the position as a director. The article did not mention him having a meeting with the staff to involve them in the decision-making process. He did not use Value Clarifying skills because he did not ask the staff members about their values. He made the changes that he thought were necessary based on his own values. He never asked them about the practice methods that they found to be most effective.
ReplyDeleteAs for the policy tasks, Dr. Breeze Built an Agenda based on his own concerns and desires. He did not properly Analyze the Problems at the agency. He seemed to have had the "problems" figured out when he arrived. The article says nothing about him Writing or Enacting any Proposals; he met with the staff and enacted changes on his own. Dr. Breeze told the staff about the new practice methods, but the article says nothing about him Implementing old or new Policies. We don't know if the staff actually incorporated the changes into their practices. Dr. Breeze did not complete the task of Policy Assessing because he did not evaluate the agency's existing policies to find out how effective they were or were not.
In my professional opinion, Dr. Breeze did a poor job of using the policy skills to accomplish the policy tasks.
In this policy advocacy challenge, Dr. Breeze was hired as director of San Marcos Community Mental Health Center. He appeared to be a good match in the beginning. Although some board members did not like him the retiring director felt that they needed some new ideas and dedication of youth. Dr. Breeze was certainly nontraditional and unconventional. I'm quite sure as a young man who wanted to bring about positive change with all his ideas but he went about it the wrong way. He completely went against the six Policy Tasks which are, Agenda Building, Problem Analyzing, Proposal Writing, Proposal Enacting, Policy Implementing, and Policy Assessing. He also went against the four Policy Skills which are Analytical, Political, Interactional, and Value Clarifying. He sort of went in there like he knew everything and did not care about the staff that was already working there. In some instances he was unprofessional. For instance, arguing with the chief of policy about how they were doing their job. He was stepping on too many toes which is the reason why there was so much turmoil within the agency.
ReplyDeleteIn this reading Dr. Breeze used his authority to change how an agency functioned after becoming in charge. He used the policy tasks of agenda building by changing the long waiting lists and long-term therapy to short-term, problem analyzing, by acting as a supervisor when it came to employees working on ethnic groups, also policy implementing when his plans for change. Over time the employees who were working under prior supervision felt that the agency became divided and a client suffered from the change which caused for the situation to become political. Staff members wanted to express their point of views on how divided the agency had become and wanted to let board of advisors know. Supporters of Dr. Breeze threatened that all funds would be removed if he were to be fired. In the end the main goal that the agency employees wanted to accomplish was to become as "one" again. They could use some of the unconventional techniques that Dr. Breeze offered but also wanted to go back to the supervisory technique they used previously. I think that Dr. Breeze should have at least let everyone come together to decide the best way to run or make changes within the agency especially since they had been working their longer. He should not have just imposed his way on everyone else.
ReplyDeleteCompared to the retiring director Dr. Breeze was young and full of fresh ideas that would hopefully take the agency in a new direction, but this was not the case. I think that Dr. Breeze got a little beside himself, because he should have consulted with other board members about all of his new iedas before acting on them. His methods were non traditional, but this is what the retiring director what for the agency, he wanted some one that would bring youth to the agency.
ReplyDeleteDr. Breeze is a great example of the do's and dont's of leadership. When he was hired as the new director he implemented many changes such as work hours and policies which have been in place long before he came to the agency. Also, he did not consult his workers and ask for ideas, comments or feedback to his ideas. Thus, this caused extreme tension within the workplace creating a negative environment. His methods were non traditional and non conventional. This actually could have been a positive thing because he had a fresh and new approach, however he failed to unite the employees and everyone was not on the same page. Since the staff was unhappy in their job, this most likely effected the patients. I am sure the patients could see the tension and it had a negative effect. I believe the employees were right to ban together and remove Mr. Breeze because he was not a good leader. A good leader must be a follower first and listen to its members. He failed to do so. This is a great example of what NOT to do as a leader or supervisor.
ReplyDeleteChapter 4 of the 4th edition of BECOMING AN EFFECTIVE POLICY ADVOCATE (pp. 123-124).
It was good that Dr. Brezze came up with all type up ideas. It was good that for Dreeze to present ideas. Mr. Breeze should have first explain the ideas and how they would conform with agency in a positive way. Mr. Breeze should have consulted more with his employee's. He could have asked the employee's how they felt about the ideas or if they any of your own. Dr. Breeze should have not enforced his ideas so soon. He should have built a relationship with his employee's so he could of known the employee's feelings. Dr. Breeze made a big mistake thinking he could change the thought process of his workers. It takes time for new ideas to develop/
ReplyDeleteDr. Breeze used a non traditional agenda and implemented his own ideas. I think this is where the problems begin to start. However this did not work well with many of the employees, it was his way to provide better services to the patients. It would have been better if he had stop and listened to more of his staff but at the same time, his focus was more on the people and their effective services. The focus of the patients was probably his motive, but without staff things cannot be done. The changes in agenda divided the staff and with a negative atmosphere it can make it hard for the staff to work together effectively to provide services. I think Dr. Breeze came off more aggressive with leadership rather than assertive about the situation. I am not sure if he used any of the policy tasks effectively. But he did consider the most important unit which was the patients. Dr. Breeze did want to know how the staff interacted with the patients because he felt that their biases were getting in the way of their proper services to the patients.
ReplyDelete