Organizational Behaviour Management: Patient Safety in Healthcare

This report examines the application of Organizational Behaviour Management (OBM) in healthcare settings to improve patient safety. It analyzes the use of group behavior-based feedback by managers, intervention strategies employed to enhance group effectiveness, and motivational theories to sustain positive outcomes. The study reviews OBM techniques used by hospital managers in response to patient safety incidents, highlighting the impact of corrective action communication, individual and group assessments, and positive feedback. Research findings by Cummingham and Geller (2011) reveal that interventions increased employee sensitivity to reporting errors and that the use of group feedback significantly improved. The report also discusses neurotic managerial styles and their impact on organizational culture and employee behavior, emphasizing the importance of effective communication and documentation for patient safety. The study concludes with recommendations for healthcare facilities to develop and implement robust patient safety education programs. This report is a valuable resource for understanding the role of OBM in healthcare and improving patient outcomes.

Running Head: ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 1
Organizational Behaviour Management
Marilyn Pizarro-Johnson
Principles of Health Care Administration
Dr. Kevin A. Cojanu
April 9, 2019

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 2
Organizational Behaviour Management
The scope of this case study extends to discuss the group behaviour-based feedback as
used by the manager. Additionally, the study proceeds to evaluate and examine the
intervention strategies applied by the group leader in enhancing the effectiveness of the group
together with a discussion on the motivational theory explanation which can be applied for
sustaining the results. Also, the study reviews the organizational behaviour management
techniques reported to be used by hospital managers to respond to patient safety. The needs
assessment results were sent to the managers; corrective action communication was issued as
an instruction to the two event types. This is in consolidation with the group together with an
individual behaviour-based assessment along with the positive feedback meant to support
behaviour and hence end the prevailing damage.
A research conducted by Cummingham and Geller (2011) where a total of 527
interventions were recorded after reviewing 361 patient safety events follow-up descriptions
revealed that in the first month of intervention, there was an increment in the reports of
targeted event types. However, the reports of the targeted event types decreased in
subsequent months. A deduction was induced from the observation that the intervention had
an effect of increasing the employees’ sensitivity regarding the need to report close calls and
learning from them. Another result that was obtained from the research is that during the
intervention phase, there was a display of opposite trends in impact scores for the two
targeted events. These opposite trends in impact scores were linked to the follow-up actions
by the manager. In the first month, the variance of the impact scores for follow-up behaviours
for treatment increased sharply. In the following two months, the variance declined gradually.
On the contrary, there was a slight increase in impact scores for follow-up behaviours
recorded for witnessed falls in the first month. The following months were characterized by a
sharp increase. A significant result that was recorded from the research was the increased

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 3
usage of group feedback. During the intervention phase, there was a significant increase in
the use of group and individual feedback by the managers. However, the use of no
intervention decreased which signifies that the management of patient safety errors improved
accordingly. The fourth and final result that was obtained from Cummingham and Geller
(2011) research showed that healthcare workers together with participating managers had a
positive expression towards the intervention techniques applied and the outcomes thereof.
The managers received the intervention follow-up reports and the summaries of the monthly
events during the manager’s meeting. The managers were then requested to share the same
with their employees. Workers and managers perceived an increment in praise deliverance
for behaviours by the managers to deter any harm as opposed to delivering reprimands for the
errors made. These results were discovered after conducting an intervention perception
survey as part of the Cummingham and Geller (2011) research.
Graber (2009) notes the existence of clear, occasional, pathological and organizational
misbehaviour by the executives of health organizations. Group decision making and a show
of self-interests by the executives is a reflection of organizational dysfunction. This is evident
in the events where intelligent people portray a lack of judgement. Graber (2009) suggests
that the result can make leaders lose clear articulation of organizational culture, the
organizational goals and values not forgetting the organizational vision. Additionally, the
organizational dysfunction of executives can make them fail to motivate and engage
employees to leave alone developing significant reward systems required to institute changes.
Chen, Wang, Redley, Hsieh, Chu & Han (2018) argues that the quality of patient’s
care is improved whenever the incident reporting is assimilated as part of clinical outcome
and the reporting rate continues to increase. Despite the continuous use of various
organizational behaviour management (OBM) techniques in improving patient’s safety
designated behaviours, there still exists a gap in healthcare worker’s patient-safety-focused

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 4
behavioural interventions. According to Cunningham (2011), where the needs are already
identified in an organization, the OBM intervention is always applied. The means of the need
determination varies from one application to another.
Motamedi (2006) notes that the consequences of neurotic managerial style to
individuals, the organization and the team are undesirable. Whereas effective managers use
strategic and sound management practices which rely on inductive sense-making, rational
decision making and logic to manage their organizations, neurotic managers tend to use
idiosyncratic and anxious styles. These styles lead to reckless results as they obliterate and
undermine the effectiveness of the people and the organization. In an organizational setting,
employees tend to copy the neurotic styles of their leaders and managers as a result of
opportunism and fear. This leads to the establishment of a toxic and neurotic culture (Frates,
2014). Under this culture, people experience different dimensions of unproductive feeling
characterized by depression, anger, apathy, distress, helplessness, distrust and defensiveness.
A lowered quality of life and frequent stressful experience form the features developed by a
person who is subjected to neurotic managerial styles. The various neurotic styles include;
dramatic, suspicious, compulsive and depressive.
Under the dramatic neurotic style, the manager/leader expresses their emotions
excessively. They also tend to draw attention to themselves. The leaders that exhibit this
style appear to possess a craving for excitement. The key focus of this style is to impress
others. In addition to promoting a strong entrepreneurial spirit, the leader may become too
centralized to the extent of micromanaging the employees. The other neurotic style is
suspicious. The leader exhibiting this style tends to be paranoid with an exhibition of mistrust
of other people (Motamedi, 2006). They also tend to be very secretive to other workers
regarding work-related things. They also use some employees as spies to report on what other
workers are doing or saying. They end up creating an empathic environment among the

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 5
workers. This style acts as a demonstration of know-how and a centre of creating awareness
of opportunities and threats. It also promotes disciplinary policies by encouraging stockpile
information and evasion (Frates, 2014). The other style is referred to as compulsive. This
style indicates a preoccupation with minor details before decision making. It emphasizes on
employees’ compliance and submission to organizational procedures and rules. A
leader/manager exercising this style tend to be obsessed with the controlling workers. Its
main focus is on individual status and rank. The leader is always efficient in operation as he
appears to have good problem solving skills and strong analytics. The risk of analysis
paralysis also characterizes the style. The other neurotic style is depressive. Under this style,
people are not encouraged to think out of the box. It does not encourage or invite inventions
and innovations to improve organizational performance. It insists on doing work according to
the rules of the book (Frates, 2014). The last style under this study is the detached style. This
style is open to new ideas. It also encourages influences from people of all levels. However,
in the case of a leadership vacuum, managers are induced to form a personal sphere of
operations.
In conclusion, effective communication is recommended about patient’s safety.
Documentation on all steps taken with the patient is always necessary. This will act as proof
of the organization’s involvement on behalf of the patient’s safety. Every healthcare facility
should develop a top-notch patient safety education and implement it by putting it into
practice.

ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT 6
References
Chen, L.-C., Wang, L.-H., Redley, B., Hsieh, Y.-H., Chu, T.-L., & Han, C.-Y. (2018). A
Study on the Reporting Intention of Medical Incidents: A Nursing Perspective.
Clinical Nursing Research, 27(5), 560. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edb&AN=129572761&site=eds-live&scope=site
Cunningham, T. R., & Geller, E. S. (2011). What do healthcare managers do after a mistake?
Improving responses to medical errors with organizational behaviour management.
Journal of Communication in Healthcare, 4(2), 70–87. https://doi
org.proxylibrary.ashford.edu/10.1179/175380611X13022552566290
Frates, J. (2014). Health care management: Theory in action [Electronic version]. Retrieved
from https://content.ashford.edu
Graber, D. R. (2009).” Organizational dysfunction and pathology” Health organizations:
Theory, behaviour and development. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett
Motamedi, K. (2006). “Seven neurotic styles of management.” Graziadio business review,
Vol 9(4): 22 -35