The AAPHI Blog

Most Western countries have a high degree of industrialization and modernization which results in a lot of prosperity. This prosperity, in turn, results in a society in which all citizens can be seen as ‘not poor’. This trivial fact is not something which can be seen as a miracle or a natural phenomenon, but as a result of planning. In turn, the society as a whole must be organized in such a way that guarantees can be given to its citizens for their individual well-being. This egalitarian principle in Western countries is conceptualized in the term ‘welfare state’. It is not the intention of this article to provide a historical account of the emergence of the welfare state, but the main goal is to discuss an important catalytic factor in the emergence of the welfare state: social planning.

Social planning is not synonymous to governmental planning because it is a broad term which is relevant for numerous kinds of planning. Almost every form of planning, whether it is education planning, health planning, business planning or science planning, all have clear and definite social characteristics. For this reason, a social planner can have different academic backgrounds: sociologist, economist, business administration, public administration, etc.

What is social planning? Planning can be seen as a process in which a definite number of steps in time are undertaken which will result in a strategy necessary to cope with a certain problem. Take, for instance, a housewife who wants to cook her family a nice dinner. She will first decide what sort of meal she will prepare. She will make a list of the necessary ingredients and she will go to the nearest supermarket and buy these ingredients. Back home she will cook the meal which will be ready around dinner time. Her family can enjoy a warm home cooked meal made with fresh ingredients. This is all the result of planning albeit a simple form of planning.

Unfortunately, the social reality in which we live in is a lot more complex and confusing. So, to solve all those complex problems, the planner has developed numerous techniques and methods of planning. In general, all planners tend to agree that there are two kinds of planning. The first type of planning is called substantial planning. This form of planning is connected with highly specialized planning in a certain sector or area. For instance education planning, spatial planning, business planning, etc. are forms of substantial planning. The second type of planning is procedural planning. This type of planning is concerned with general characteristics of the planning process. The central question of this form of planning is: how can I shape a planning process? This article is about the latter form of planning rather than a specialized method of application of planning. A logical consequence of procedural planning is that planning must be seen as a process. And this process is a process of analysis, anticipation, design, action, and application.

Planning as a ‘learning process’

Planning is not an activity which can be seen as a process which is uncontroversial. The science of planning is still growing and the concept of planning is numerous. Every planner has his own way of looking at planning and this has resulted in a ‘jungle’ of planning definitions and concepts. Fortunately, this fact has given a strong impulse to the growth of the science of planning. In the beginning, planning was solely a technical and industrial engagement. But recently planners realized that planning should be seen as a social activity. For this reason, sociologists developed a strong interest in the systematic analysis of planning. A significant consequence of this approach of planning is that the learning aspects of planning have been recognized. So, the concept of planning as a ‘learning process’ can be seen as the most recent approach of planning. This form of planning has integrated certain aspects from the system theories, cybernetics, and the communication and social theories.

A major characteristic of the system theories is that the social reality is seen as a system which consists of subsystems. If we know that the reality consists of subsystems, then it is possible to make models. Models actually mirror the reality which consists of subsystems. Take, for instance, a mouse who is trying to escape from the claws of a cat. The mouse itself has a dynamic system; it is possible for the mouse to constantly change its system. In order to escape from the cat, the mouse can run into various directions which, in turn, depend on its sight, smell, and hearing capacities. So, the mouse possesses a dynamic system. For planning, however, a dynamic system is not enough because the social reality is also changing constantly. The consequence of the changing social reality is that our analysis of the situation is easily outdated and irrelevant.

There are two strategies to cope with this problem: using forecasting techniques which can be incorporated in the planning process and/or the incorporation of feedback mechanisms in the planning process. The latter strategy is actually an aspect which has been derived from cybernetics. So, it can be stated that planning is a learning process since new ideas, changes in the reality, and experience are all incorporated in the planning system by feed-back mechanisms. It is actually information (the learning aspects of planning) which is incorporated in the planning process; without information we cannot function properly.

There is one final aspect which must be incorporated in the planning system: participation. It is actually an aspect of the communication and social theories. Planning is usually not an individualistic activity, especially when the problem to be solved is complex and when a lot of people are involved. So, participation of others in the planning process is very important since it is essential to make a good and successful plan rather than an unrealistic plan.

Planning as a decision-making process

In most cases, planning is highly related to decision making. Decisions are constantly being made in reality without any difficulties at all. Decisions can be made by simple intuitions, but it can also be made by a deeper analysis of a problem. An example of an intuitive decision: which hand do I use writing a paper or what is the best position for me to get into sleep in bed at night, etc. This kind of decision making happens automatically; there is no need for a deeper analysis. The planner, however, is not a person who believes that all his problems can be solved with intuitions. If this is the case, a dangerous situation might arise for the planner himself or for the people who are affected by his plans. A sensible social planner realizes that the social reality is a complex reality. For this reason, the social planner will base his plans on rational analysis. It must be mentioned that a social planner is also a human being who is not perfect.

Planning is about decision making. In turn, decision making is based on analysis; this means that a certain part of the reality must be subdivided into a certain number of parts. These parts can be analyzed which means that all the consequences of all the problem-solving alternatives must be screened. However, it is impossible to make a complete analysis of the entire reality which is too complex in nature.

Usually, there is not enough time, money, and intellectual capabilities to solve a social problem in a total manner. This does not mean that that an incomplete analysis is useless because it will clarify the problem a lot more and there is no doubt about the usefulness of an incomplete analysis. In order to clarify this, an illustration can be given. Imagine there are two alternative plans available and it is absolutely necessary that one option is chosen. In addition, it is known that the results of plan A are less satisfying than the results of plan B. The chances that plan B will succeed is only 40%. But it is also known that in case plan B is successful, then the results at the end is much better than the results of plan A. Which plan do you have to choose? The following calculations will provide more clarity. Suppose the success of plan B will be given the value of 1 and the failure of plan A will be given the value 0. In case plan A succeeds, a value of 0.7 can be given, but if plan B fails, a value of 0.2 can be given. The expected value for choosing plan A can now be calculated:

(0.8 x 0.7) + (0.2 x 0.0) = 0.56

For choosing plan B, the calculation is:

(0.4 x 1.0) + (0.6 x 0.2) + 0.52

So, in this case plan A should be the obvious choice.

Planning, forecasting, and policy making

It was already mentioned that the process of planning includes anticipation. This process of anticipation or forecasting is actually the process of predicting the future. Planning and forecasting cannot be separated from each other, but cannot be separated from the process of policy making. The process of policy making can be defined as the search for certain means in order to reach an acceptable goal in the future. In other words, problems we have today must be eliminated in the future and it is our task to find means to achieve this goal. Planning in this case must be seen as a supporting factor of policy making consisting of the following processes: preparation, consideration, decision, execution, evaluation, and feedback. The relationship between planning, forecasting, and policy making is useful because governments, politicians and policy makers need all these instruments.

If you would like to get custom-made advice about your planning problems, please feel free to email me at martinmim21@hotmail.com My name is Martin Hahn Ph.D. and I am an industrial sociologist with more than 20 years experience in teaching, management consulting, and corporate training. All requests will be handled professionally and your planning problem will be handled in strict confidence.

Twice a year, Bill Gates goes to a remote island hide-a-way for a week at a time. No, he’s not going for a fishing vacation; instead of rods, reels, and lures he takes market analyses, position reports, engineering reports, and opportunity papers. In solitude he reads and thinks and reads some more, writing notes in the margins then composing questions, thoughts, and his own positions that will impact the future of Microsoft and the entire technology industry for years to come.

Getting away from the daily pressures for an extended period of careful thought and consideration in his “Think Weeks” are the way Bill Gates works on the vision of the company, determines what new projects to pursue, and plans for the future. It is the same rigorous work and thought process that CEO’s of every business should pursue. Do you?

Now, I’m not suggesting that you should take a “Think Week” twice a year. Your business is much less complex than Microsoft. But, if your business is to remain competitive in this business environment and grow, you must take some think time. Maybe you need to take a “Think Hour”, a “Think Afternoon”, a “Think Day”, or even a “Think Weekend” with no telephones, no people, and no distractions. Go off onto that remote island (even if it is just behind your closed door with a “do not disturb” sign and a disconnected phone) to put the interruptions of the day-to-day far away. Have an agenda. Ask yourself some hard questions:

“Is the business on track to fulfilling my vision?”

“Is the growth rate or profit rate on target”

“If not - what can we do to improve it?”

“Where is my industry headed in the next five years and how do I position my business to take advantage of the changes?”

“What changes in our company culture, policies, strategies, and tactics are necessary and how do we implement them?”

If Bill Gates can get away from his multi-billion dollar business for two “Think Weeks” a year, you should be able to do it for two “Think Afternoons.” It will make a difference.

Larry Galler, a Coach and Consultant, works with Owners and Managers of small and mid-size businesses to substantially increase sales volume and profitability through creative marketing strategies and streamlining or eliminating “administrivia.”

To learn about ways Larry helps businesses acheive their goals visit http://www.larrygaller.com

As a performance coach for a New York life insurance agency, I conducted weekly sessions with the management team to focus on increasing company productivity, retention, and profitability. At the first meeting, six of the seven senior managers were on time, and I asked these managers how they handle tardiness within the agency.

“We are instructed to lock the door and begin the meeting,” one manager responded. I asked if locking the door increases productivity.
“To be honest, we don’t look at it like that,” another manager replied, “we simply adhere to the company policy.”

Tardiness, procrastination, gossip, absenteeismcommon office problems are often the result of poor communication. Managers need to learn how to communicate, which is a complex issue because each person has a different, preferred style of communicating. What is the most effective method for resolving people problems? Tapping into certain stylistic communicative resources is what I call the “Key” concept. My back and front door keys look alike and both enter the cylinder, but only one key opens the door. Symbolically, each word in verbal communication represents a notch on the key, and only the right combination of words will open the door to the employee, and solve the human problem.

Unfortunately, most people in power communicate in ways that make themselves feel comfortable, such as through intimidation, threats, or some form of punishmentforms of communication that obviously fail to build trusting relationships, motivate employees, increase productivity and improve behavior.

How To Resolve Tardiness

At the insurance agency, while we waited for the last manager to arrive, one manager explained that I would probably be unsuccessful in changing his behavior, because he’s the number one manager and has access to his boss’s office. The manager arrived twelve minutes late and tippy-toed to his chair. I greeted him and asked, “How can I help you be on time?” The top manager was reticent, and while he sat speechless, another manager responded, “Pick him up in the morning!” Although the manager was being glib with his suggestion, I enthusiastically countered that this was an excellent idea. Dismayed, the manager then asked how long would I be willing to pick him up in the morning in order to get the tardy manager to his meetings on time. I replied, “In the morning, I have the proclivity for talking in a crazy manner, and doubt that he would tolerate my company for very long.” All the managers laughed. I then asked him, “Are you aware that your tardiness is insulting?” Again, no verbal replybut he was never late to another meeting.

People want to cooperate. In my encounter at the New York insurance agency, the critical ingredients to the tardiness solution were to engage in verbal communication, design to offer help, and provide feedback. If the employee feels criticized or offended, then the dialogue is not constructive or profitable. Dialogue is a creative process, and requires using the right toolsthe right keysto resolve people problems.

Wilfred E. Calmas, MBA, Ph.D., is an executive coach and consultant specializing in interpersonal conflict resolution and sales productivity development. For more information on this article, contact Dr. Calmas at wcalmas@calmasassociates.com

Handling Problematic Physicians by Marshall Colt, Ph.D.

Medical group managers must frequently deal with problematic
physicians and the resulting negative organizational dynamics.
It costs many practices valuable time, energy and money. One of
the most important skills in handling difficult physicians is
how to manage conflict.

Physicians come in all shapes and sizes. Some know business,
many don’t; some know how to lead people, most don’t. But that’s
why they have you, to help them with those things. Primarily,
physicians want to practice medicine, period. When forced to
practice medicine in the real world, they largely view the other
things as distractions. Just as myopic as bottom-liners who
forget they must work with people to improve the bottom line,
many docs forget they must work in a peopled system, too.

In my experience working in and consulting to hospitals and
medical group practices, problematic physicians behave in ways
that fall into roughly three categories:

● Oppositional-defiant (being argumentative, acting out,
refusing direction, etc.) ● Silent-superior (a form of
passive-aggressiveness) ● Weak-helpless (another form of
being passive-aggressive)

Here is a practical model of how to deal with a physician in
such situations:

Why conflict happens and how people keep it going

Most arguments start because one person reacts too soon to
inaccurate and/or incomplete information. Of course, sometimes
both parties completely understand the other’s position and they
still disagree. However, usually, the former holds. Add in the
complicating status or power differentials that often occur
between group managers and physicians and you’ve got a
particularly challenging, sensitive situation. If mishandled, it
could fester or get even worse.

Instead of coming to resolution, people keep arguments going by:

● getting defensive, ● counterattacking, ●
leaving the field (”I’m not going to address that”), or ●
changing the subject (”Well, look at how much vacation you
take!”).

Any of the above is basically used to “win” an argument, not
resolve it. As an effective manager of conflict, you must get
your ego out of it: give up winning in favor of resolution.

Nipping conflict in the bud

Prolonged arguments predominantly involve statements, or
sarcastic questions masking statements. However, statements
alone don’t work in resolving disagreements because they don’t
address the two factors that start arguments: inaccurate and/or
incomplete information. So the key is to address these two
factors.

Additionally, you need to hold the line on getting defensive,
counterattacking, leaving the field or changing the subject.

Of several possible ways to curtail and resolve conflict, one
most effective is a process I call “Data Gathering.” Not a
touchy-feely approach, Data Gathering is a practical method to
both defuse anger and begin to resolve an issue. Here’s the
abbreviated version:

Step 1) Only ask questions…gather data…listen. Just try to
see how the physician views the situation. Don’t respond with
your view (prevents getting defensive, counterattacking, etc.).
Only clarify, if necessary.

Step 2) After you feel you understand how the physician “ticks”
about the issue, ask “Is there anything else you think I need to
know about this?” At her conclusion, say you’ll give the matter
more thought. This allows the physician to feel she’s been
heard, with her points taken seriously enough by you to devote
your added consideration. We all want our day in court. This
serves that important purpose and cools things down.

Step 3) At the next meeting, thank the physician for her ideas
and propose a solution. Again, use mostly questions, not
statements, to respond to any objections. Using this process, a
mutually agreed resolution will most likely bubble up in time,
with a fight or power struggle avoided.

For more information:
http://www.corp-psych-mgmt.com/healthcare-industry-consulting.htm