What are the four organizational strategy types? Describe how an organization chooses which strategy to implement.
Program Planning and Community Needs Assessment
Organizational Strategy Types in Program Planning and Community Needs Assessment
The four organizational strategy types include authoritative, competitive, cooperative, and disruptive. On considering organizational strategy upon to cater for health requirements of a community, public health leaders ought to take into account factors that impact health issues such as social, epidemiologic, ecologic, behavioral, environmental, and as far as political influence. There is need to consider particular interests of clients served, approaches of policy-influencers, health delivery systems abilities and critical community health data.
Authoritative strategy is when an organization enacts and applies laws that give framework and hence control the actions of its constituents and staff or rather its stakeholders. In this view, success is realized when these rules and regulations are enforced through ability to give directives and subsequent control over its surroundings (Lloyd et al, 2008). For instance, the prerogative by public health organizations to firmly enforce a law that requires each citizen to be vaccinated against polio, screening for cancer, diabetes and other diseases management. Figuratively, a condition has been laid to test for HIV/AIDS whenever one goes for tuberculosis treatment. Such measures apply to every person as they reduce tuberculosis (Brown, 2010) and control Hive/AIDS.
Cooperative strategy ensures particular agreements between public health and its constituents. Under this arrangement, there are mutual contractual benefits. In his work, (Brown, 2010) says this attracts a wide range of partnerships, public health practitioners, medical community and the constituents. The constituents are involved for cooperation and benefits while medical community and public health practitioners, help in identifying, carrying out risks evaluation in the community and to decipher and implement procedural treatments for the population (Lloyd et al, 2008). In this strategy, an organization may opt for pooling together resources, adopting representatives from competitors and exchange of resources with other members with a goal of curtailing the probable opposition (Lloyd et al, 2008). Networking becomes fundamental in facilitating good rapport, effective retrieval and dissemination of information that enhance links, affiliations and chances to both deliver and acquire resources from the constituents. Best example is that shown by United Nations Environmental Programme when they established strategic plans that required each country, with an attempt to improve and strengthen planning, monitoring and evaluation systems on land, strengthening and linking systems that revolve around land requires participation of all the concerned. This would be possible through engaging the local people and communities, policy-making bodies and the staff, engaged in decision-making on and use and management.
Competitive strategy is implemented when need arises to make the organization more appealing. This involves evidenced based quest for funding, stating why the program will be beneficial, why it is rated as the best approach unlike other competitors, what its impact will be on the constituents and how well it attracts external support for its success (Lloyd et al, 2008). With effective, efficient and high quality strategic plan, an organization may implement this plan in assessing community and eventually present its case to funding bodies to offer dollars for its much-needed implementation. Excellent programme backed by the community, will ensure an organization stand atop its potential competitors in community health provision (Lloyd et al, 2008).
Disruptive strategy involves critical analysis of the anticipated and potential impact of a particular strategy implementation (Lloyd et al, 2008). In most occasions, organizations are placed between a hard place and a rock with no clue of how to handle disruption, in terms of when to bring the constituents on board. Indicators point towards earlier involvement even though it could be detrimental towards formations of a strategy. For instance, labeling tobacco to be harmful to human health will require the input of the producing industry, end consumers and the policy-makers. The company wants to make profits, public health officers want to arrest the risks, reduce deaths due to cancer, and maintain congruent chain of suppliers. The question becomes whether to involve the manufacturers at the very beginning or not. Interestingly, the option is to do it at the implementation process (Lloyd et al, 2008).
Brown LD. (2010). The political face of public health. Public Health Reviews: 32:155-173. EHESP.