THE POLICY THINKSHOP "Think Together"

Public Policy is social agreement written down as a universal guide for social action. We at The Policy ThinkShop share information so others can think and act in the best possible understanding of "The Public Interest."

How the Great Recession Has Changed Life in America | Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project

As the various candidates for the office of President of the United States define themselves and throw their hat in the ring, we should probably take a good look at their position on the American workforce and the American workplace. Especially important will be how economic policy affects these two important areas of life–both the quality of life for most working families in the country and the quality of life at the community level as it relates to access to quality education and training for working families.

More via How the Great Recession Has Changed Life in America | Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project.

Filed under: access to education, Blogosphere, Data Trends - American Demographics and Public Opinion, Economic Recession, Economic Recovery, Family Policy, Job Sector, Mortgages, News, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms, Political Economy, Polls and pollsters, Presidential Election, Public Policy, Unemployment, Vote, WeSeeReason

Five million families and children will now sleep a little easier. How will the new Latino/Hispanic immigrant status impact healthcare policy?

Being “in the shadows” has long been a healthcare access issue.  The broken healthcare system has been aggravated by a broken immigration system. Immigration and healthcare are tied together in many ways, especially for the economically disadvantaged.

According to the New York Times:

What Is President Obama’s Immigration Plan?

President Obama announced on Thursday evening a series of executive actions to grant up to five million unauthorized immigrants protection from deportation. The president is also planning actions to direct law enforcement priorities toward criminals, allow high-skilled workers to move or change jobs more easily, and streamline visa and court procedures, among others. NOV. 20, 2014 RELATED ARTICLE

close story-meta-footer

close story-meta

Who could be affected?

The president’s plan is expected to affect up to five million of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population, currently 11.4 million according to the Migration Policy Institute. It would create a new program of deferrals for approximately 3.7 undocumented parents of American citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for at least five years. Deferrals would include authorization to work and would be granted for three years at a time.

It would also expand a program created by the administration in 2012 called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which allows young people who were brought into the country as children to apply for deportation deferrals and work permits. The plan would extend eligibility to people who entered the United States as children before January 2010 (the cutoff is currently June 15, 2007). It would also increase the deferral period to three years from two years and eliminate the requirement that applicants be under 31 years old. About 1.2 million young immigrants are currently eligible, and the new plan would expand eligibility to approximately 300,000 more.

It would not provide a path to full legal status or benefits under the Affordable Care Act. Officials have said that the president’s plan will not provide specific protection for farm workers or parents of DACA-eligible immigrants.

Filed under: ACA and Medicaid, Blogosphere, Data Trends - American Demographics and Public Opinion, Family Policy, Feminization of Poverty, Health Literacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Immigration, Latinos, Maternal and Child Health, Medicaid, News, Public Health, Public Policy,

Ignore Emotional Intelligence at Your Own Risk: Policy ThinkShop comments on Harvard Business Review article by Claudio Fernández-Aráoz

Emotional intelligence (also known as “EQ”) is an idea that grew up in academia, was popularized on pop psychology shelves and, more recently, has been made useful in leadership development and organizational management circles. From its conception, it was juxtaposed to the idea of Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Its lofty intellectual beginnings notwithstanding, EQ has been embraced by so many for so many reasons that its early paradigmatic intentions may now be lost to the many.

Popular ideas live in the minds of the many and, perhaps because of their simplicity and utility, become sustainable and prolific for both producers and consumers. Academic ideas and constructs more often tend to be quite different from popular ideas. They differ in that their currency tends to require intellectual specialization, academic environments akin to monasteries, and individuals with a broad understanding of the numerous currents and variables that give academic products their place in the refereed conversation of the nation’s professorial ranks. Emotional intelligence is an important flashpoint for forces with differing origins yet ideally common destinations–thinking individuals wanting to promote social good and noble ends. Daniel Goleman and Adam Grant are two such forces; they are social communicative pundits in the ongoing tug of war that will define the proper and productive utility, and place, of emotional intelligence, as a leadership and workforce development concept.

We may be exceedingly amazed to see academics, intellectuals, pundits, and intellectual entrepreneurs spar in the marketplace of ideas in order to promote their worth and place in the market. Certainly, Adam Grant steps into the breach and tries to hold Goleman to task for what he sees as academic obfuscation. Interestingly, he borders on ad hominem intentions and plain teasing. Perhaps Adam Grant is pandering to this electronic social media medium and finds such rhetorical tools necessary. Perhaps the conversation that is sought here with leaders understands that today’s leaders are not Plato’s philosopher kings. Indeed, Grant does not seem to see the business of management outside of specific emotional terrain so touchy feely as Goleman would. It is plain to see that Daniel Goleman’s place is secure, as the high priest of pop psychology, because his Ph.D. in Psychology and his perch on the NYTs allowed him to popularly run with the “EQ” concept and build an entrepreneurial empire which may outlive him and the rest of us. To be sure, the spoils from popular media endeavors have favored Goleman’s lot, EQ’s intellectual forefathers have not similarly gained (John Mayer and Peter Salovey). This does not bode well for future intellectuals lacking entrepreneurial prowess. You will find Mr. Grant on LinkedIn though, promoting his intellectual wares; he’ll do just fine.

Interestingly, we can look at Salovey’s dissertation from way back in 1986 for the early intellectual ground from which the concept of EQ grew (P. Salovey, The Effects of Mood and Focus of Attention on Self-Relevant Thoughts and Helping Intention, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1986). We can also look at the role of popular psychology in our culture to find similar ground for Goleman’s efforts and success. Mayer and Salovey are the original promoters of the ideas and of the intellectual history which gave intellectual buoyancy to the concept. Daniel Goleman refers to his encounter with the work of these two men in a passing way and diminishes their importance by alluding to the lack of stature of the journal in which they published the original 1990 article “Emotional Intelligence.” Goleman has turned the work of these men into a cottage industry and his published retort to Grant shows his ability to popularly promote the term “EQ” in contrast to feebly defending it. Perhaps Goleman is safe behind the popularity curtain always protecting his wizard like reputation. Up and coming scholar, Adam Grant, rightly exposes Goleman’s use of the concept as less relevant outside the parameters of academic rigor and of the realms of possible scientific discipline and emotive applications.

The concept has grown to mean so many things to so many people that it now means specifically very little within the confines of academic, intellectual or theoretical query. Salovey and Mayer’s contributions to modern management and leadership are now popularly distant from their original rigorous work. The popular development of that work may possibly have obstructed the original potential of Salovey and Mayer’s ideas and constructs, further obfuscating the road to needed progressive managerial and leadership applications. Goleman has made it common coin and personal gain–neither being efforts which have contributed significantly in taking the concept further along its original intellectual journey; nor has it helped in the building of necessary theoretical constructs that can give us an applied framework that allows for clarity regarding how and when it is useful as a heuristic model for organizational, group, or individual purposes. To be sure, Goleman now makes these claims; but his arguments are devoid of the rigor evident in the original works of the real pioneers from which the potentially useful constructs originate.

Centuries have passed since the monastic catacombs of the original academy, with its religious literati and the ensuing work of the eventually enlightened philosophers and scientists. Work that was preserved and discriminatingly shared through coveted books and into modernity. But all that has now changed and continues to change. Ideas are now increasingly, and literally, in the clouds, ubiquitous cannon fodder for daily consumption; their value and retention seems now to be more tethered to the common cause than to the lofty undertaking. Can you imagine that?

via Ignore Emotional Intelligence at Your Own Risk.

Filed under: Blogosphere, Culture Think, Emotional Intelligence, Leadership, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms

America needs help building a more perfect union, again? “Scarcity changes how we think”

The current Republican victory either threatens healthcare access success or saves the day.  Perhaps it depends on what ideas you have to form an opinion on the matter.  Thousands of people inherit political and controversial opinions from their parents or grandparents.  But this is not our grandparent’s America.   Leadership today, and ideas to formulate solutions to our society’s most vexing social and economic challenges, must be as innovative as the ideas our forefathers forged to build our constitution.  They broke new ground to form a more perfect union.

America needs help in being more perfect today.  We need new ideas to help us support new social investments to address our collective responsibility to make sure that our form of government, and the leaders we put in charge, keep a fair balance regarding the social contract that makes us the greatest nation on earth.  Perhaps reading the current book “Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much,” by Mullainathan and Sharif, could help?

Jus about a year ago an important book was published regarding scarcity.  We were all probably a bit busy, so it did not cross our minds.  Interestingly, the book is about the very social and psychological reality that caused many of us to miss the opportunity.   We just don’t seem to have enough time in the day to do the things we need to do to make our life more manageable, more simple and, perhaps, more enjoyable.  Without mentioning the dated and overused thought model, “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,” we are reminded of a person’s lack of efficacy when overwhelmed by environmental stimuli that dictate how we feel and perhaps what we do.  Such is the case in this important book on the effects on our minds and how our mind works when confronted by daily challenges.  The mind, the book’s thesis goes, has limits (“bandwidth”), and its focus is bound by our fixation on what matters among the many things coming at us.  The book is important for public health, healthcare services and health education, for example, because it gives us a less pejorative and judgmental way to look at people misbehaving.  Especially behaving in ways that seem irrational, or worse, lazy or undeserving, to us. Perhaps as health professionals, funders, planner and policy makers, we are distanced from the daily lives and realities of those confronted with our well intentioned helping systems and recommendations.   It can be daunting and frustrating.   This book may give us  hope.

Mullainathan and Sharif elaborate on a conception of the haves and the have nots that is nuanced, insightful and perhaps more pragmatic than any construct we have heretofore seen; Yes, in the war on poverty.  To be sure, decades have passed since our last great poverty reform (PRWORA, 1996 or Bill Clinton’s Welfare Reform Law).  We now have the ACA reform (Barak Obama’s Law).  This second salvo on our nation’s efforts to address the needs of the “have nots” is once again putting the poor under the looking glass.  Back in the 90s version we were looking at people, being helped, being too lazy and needing to be made to work while getting help in order to get off of the government dole.  Millions of people were thrown off of the welfare rolls and when it was all said and done a Government Accounting Office (GAO) report declared that the majority of people remaining on the rolls were ill and not employable.  This was an important report, by “objective” pundits representing the federal government; and you would think that would have been enough to usher in healthcare reform to address the urgent plight of this government policy defined and “vetted” group.  It wasn’t.

Perhaps due to our national political discourse and the focus on levels of unemployment that could not longer be explained by the “lazy people on welfare” phenomenon, the nation began to focus on working people, many who were not faring much better than people on welfare.  The struggling middle class and the “deserving working poor” became the popular political constituency.  The increasingly divided electorate called for new issue that could wedge open the door to a new group that could tip the electoral balance.  This need fueled to drive for an electoral strategy focus on new votes and created the conditions and demand for strategies promising to move this demographic to the polls.  Enter today’s healthcare reform scenario.

Perhaps this is why healthcare reform remains a political fight with uncertainties and future possibilities for failure.  Just as the end of the PRWORA’s success, in throwing the poor of the welfare rolls, may now echo the present reality where we will have disrupted thousands of families’ lives, only to throw them off the insurance rolls.

“Scarcity captures us because it is important, worthy of our attention, but we cannot fully choose when our minds will be riveted. We focus on scarcity even when we do not want to. We think about that impending project not only when we sit down to work on it but also when we are at home trying to help our child with her homework. The same automatic capture that helps us focus becomes a burden in the rest of life. Because we are preoccupied by scarcity, because our minds constantly return to it, we have less mind to give to the rest of life.”

via Scarcity changes how we think – Salon.com.

Filed under: Behavioral Health Outcomes, Blogosphere, Children and Poverty, Congressional Activity, consumers, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms

Emotional Intelligence must not be limited to academic punditry or entrepreneurial conquest … | LinkedIn

EQ Wordle Paul

We can all agree that extremely intelligent people can disagree and sometimes succumb to irrational feelings, misunderstandings and conflict. It is not enough to be smart. It is also important to get along with people, to understand them, and to express ourselves in pleasant ways that help us all get along.

We all at one time or another let our emotions carry us to places we thought we could never reach and some places and situations we never intended to be in. Emotions are an important part of our successes and failures and that includes the emotions that drive the actions of others who impact our journey. It is hard to imagine that learning to manage our emotions and to better understand the emotions of others is not an extremely desirable thing that we can pursue in a straightforward manner. But for many it is not. The concepts that cover this important topic, “emotional literacy” and “emotional competence” can be summarized in the operational definition of emotional intelligence.

Definition of Emotional Intelligence (EQ): “… the subset of social intelligence that involves the ability to monitor one’s own and other’s feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions. We posit that life tasks such as those described by Cantor and her colleagues and constructive thinking defined by Epstein are laden with affective information, that this affective information must be processed (perhaps differently than the cognitive information), and that individuals may differ in the skill with which they do so. Emotional intelligence is also a part of Gardner’s view of social intelligence, which he refers to as the personal intelligences. Like social intelligence, the personal intelligences (divided into inter- and intra­ personal intelligence) include knowledge about the self and about others. One aspect of the personal intelligence relates to feelings and is quite close to what we call “emotional intelligence.” John Mayer and Peter Salovey, 1990

Emotional intelligence (also known as “EQ”) is an idea that grew up in academia, was popularized on pop psychology shelves and, more recently, has been made useful in leadership development and organizational management circles. From its conception, it was juxtaposed to the idea of Intelligence Quotient (IQ). Its lofty intellectual beginnings notwithstanding, EQ has been embraced by so many for so many reasons that its early paradigmatic intentions may now be lost to the many.

If the intelligence scale we call “IQ” has been controversial, EQ has been equally misunderstood. Even if we can all agree on a definition and on appropriate applications of EQ theory, it’s behavioral health benefits cannot be implemented through quick short-term programs nor can it’s salutary outcomes be made sustainable without a significant transformation in our health education and K through 12 school educational systems. Many of the individuals, that could benefit from the competencies that learning and having good EQ promises, are neither fortunate enough to access the education nor in social circumstances conducive to self improvement pursuits. In a more mindful and egalitarian world, more complex ideas may achieve greater buoyancy and utility. EQ is no exception.

Popular ideas live in the minds of the many and, perhaps because of their simplicity and utility, become sustainable and prolific for both producers and consumers. The dilemma is, however, that society often needs ideas that are more complex in order to solve and address vexing modern problems. To Goleman’s credit, in part due to his efforts, EQ is being applied through his numerous consulting activities and, for example, in his supportive role helping to organize a set of conferences that led to the publication of a 1997 book by John Mayer and Peter Salovey (Emotional Development and Emotional Intelligence: Educational Implications) addressing possible emotional intelligence and social skills applications to address child development and conflict resolution in school systems (the academic team that initially developed the “theory” that led to EQ as a useful framework for researching and teaching the role that emotions play in achieving personal, social, and organizational success). Aside from this collaboration, though, much of what is popularly understood about EQ has been disseminated through Goleman’s consulting and pop psychology success NYTs best seller style.

Academic ideas and constructs more often tend to be quite different from popular ideas. They differ in that their currency tends to require intellectual specialization, academic environments akin to monasteries, and individuals with a broad understanding of the numerous currents and variables that give academic products their place in the refereed conversation of the nation’s professorial ranks. Emotional intelligence is an important flashpoint for forces with differing origins yet, ideally, common destinations–thinking individuals wanting to promote social good and noble ends. Daniel Goleman and Adam Grant are two such forces; they are social communicative pundits in the ongoing tug of war that will define the proper and productive utility, and place, of emotional intelligence, as a leadership and workforce development concept. According to Grant, Goleman goes too far in trying to apply EQ to business intelligence, heretofore an area reserved for things more mathematical and tangible. Goleman has been given a professional home on the pages of the prestigious Harvard Business Review, an instrument of both Grant and Goleman’s alma matter. A key question would be: Is EQ being misapplied or is the environment where it needs to be applied unready for its heuristic promises? Given the challenges, faced or ignored, by today’s business and organizational leaders, can we afford to dismiss this popular tool?

Adam Grant published a provocative article on LinkedIn formulating a critique of Goleman’s more global approach to EQ. Unfortunately, Grant’s article includes academic claims and posturing that is clouded by his overall trivial tone. We need a greater focus on academic rigor and the pursuit of more robust theoretical constructs that can yield progress towards EQ program development and implementation, in the area of behavioral health, for example. This seriousness seems to be lacking at the present time–certainly in Grant’s article (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20140930125543-69244073-emotional-intelligence-is-overrated?trk=prof-post).

We may be exceedingly amazed to see academics, intellectuals, pundits, and intellectual entrepreneurs spar, in the marketplace of ideas, in order to promote their worth and place in the market. The debate seems omnipresent as it crosses many borders through the Harvard Business Review, on blogs, and here on LinkedIn. Certainly, Adam Grant steps into the breach and tries to hold Goleman to task for what he sees as academic obfuscation. Interestingly, he borders on ad hominem intentions and plain teasing. Perhaps Adam Grant is pandering to this electronic social media medium and finds such rhetorical tools necessary. Perhaps the conversation that is sought here with leaders understands that today’s leaders are not Plato’s philosopher kings. Indeed, Grant does not seem to see the business of management outside of specific emotional terrain so touchy feely as Goleman would. It is plain to see that Daniel Goleman’s place is secure, as the high priest of pop psychology, because his Ph.D. in Psychology and his perch on the NYTs allowed him to popularly run with the “EQ” concept and build an entrepreneurial empire which may outlive him and the rest of us. To be sure, the spoils from the ensuing popular media endeavors have favored Goleman’s lot, EQ’s intellectual forefathers have not similarly gained (John Mayer and Peter Salovey). This does not bode well for future intellectuals lacking entrepreneurial prowess. You will find Mr. Grant on LinkedIn though, promoting his intellectual wares; he’ll do just fine.

Interestingly, we can look at Salovey’s dissertation from way back in 1986 for the early intellectual ground from which the concept of EQ grew (P. Salovey, The Effects of Mood and Focus of Attention on Self-Relevant Thoughts and Helping Intention, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1986). We can also look at the role of popular psychology in our culture to find similar ground for Goleman’s efforts and success. Mayer and Salovey are the original promoters of the ideas and of the intellectual history which gave intellectual buoyancy to the concept. Daniel Goleman refers to his encounter with the work of these two men in a passing way and diminishes their importance by alluding to the lack of stature of the journal in which they published the original 1990 article “Emotional Intelligence.” Goleman has turned the work of these men into a cottage industry and his published retort to Grant shows his ability to popularly promote the term “EQ” in contrast to feebly defending it. Perhaps Goleman is safe behind the popularity curtain always protecting his wizard like reputation. Up and coming scholar, Adam Grant, rightly exposes Goleman’s use of the concept as less relevant outside the parameters of academic rigor and of the realms of possible scientific discipline and emotive applications. The academic trial only seems to be beginning, though, and the popular court is woefully incapable of sequestering an appropriate jury to reach a useful verdict that would bridge the cerebral gap between academic thinkers, intellectual entrepreneurs and the laboring rank and file. Given EQ’s arguably heuristic potential and the millions that are being made from its application or misapplication, we can’t have some thinking of it as business and the rest of us as “nobody’s business.”

The concept has grown to mean so many things to so many people that it now means specifically very little within the confines of academic, intellectual or theoretical query. Salovey and Mayer’s contributions to modern management and leadership are now popularly distant from their original rigorous work. The popular development of that work may possibly have obstructed the original potential of Salovey and Mayer’s ideas and constructs, further obfuscating the road to needed progressive managerial and leadership applications. Goleman has made it common coin and personal gain–neither being efforts which have contributed significantly in taking the concept further along its original intellectual journey; nor has it helped in the building of necessary theoretical constructs that can give us an applied framework that allows for clarity regarding how and when it is useful as a heuristic model for organizational, group, or individual purposes. To be sure, Goleman now makes these claims; but his arguments are devoid of the rigor evident in the original works of the real pioneers from which the potentially useful constructs originate.

Centuries have passed since the monastic catacombs of the original academy, with its religious literati and the ensuing work of the eventually enlightened philosophers and scientists. That is work that was preserved and discriminatingly shared through coveted books and into modernity. But all that has now changed and continues to change. Academia is only one voice in a cacophony of social and intellectual media now fueled by e-commerce and consumed on billions of instantaneous screens. Ideas are now increasingly, and literally, in the clouds, ubiquitous cannon fodder for daily consumption; their value and retention seems now to be more tethered to the common cause than to the lofty undertaking. Can you imagine that?

More via Emotional Intelligence must not be limited to academic punditry or entrepreneurial conquest … | LinkedIn.

Filed under: Blogosphere, Culture Think, Education Policy, Education Reform, Leadership, Literature & Literati, Mass Media and Public Opinion, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms, Pundits, Social Media, Using Social Media, WeSeeReason

Ignore Emotional Intelligence at Your Own Risk – Claudio Fernández-Aráoz – Harvard Business Review

Understanding ourselves within the social and psychological context we share with those we interact with every day is vital for success in any social endeavor.  Emotional Intelligence or “EI” is an important theoretical framework for understanding the importance of mastering the motives and passions that we personally embrace and those of others we interact with within the context of working with and through others.  One way of looking at this social context is interpersonal communication.  Another is Emotional Intelligence; which is an important area of human behavior and psychology being developed and practiced by management and human resource gurus today.  The field has matured in terms of leading representatives whose ideas and constructs are grounded not only in sound research but the workshop of practice. This month’s Harvard Business Review has a useful article by Claudio Fernández-Aráoz, a leading practitioner.

“Call it Grant vs. Goleman. Two academic heavyweights face off on a topic that every student of leadership and HR cares — or at least hears — a lot about: emotional intelligence. Wharton professor Adam Grant kicks it off with a LinkedIn blog post, “Emotional Intelligence Is Overrated,” arguing that “it’s a mistake to base hiring or promotion decisions on it” and that “even in emotionally demanding work, when it comes to job performance, cognitive ability still proves more consequential than emotional intelligence.” Daniel Goleman, the psychologist credited with coining the term EI (and, full disclosure, a friend), issues his rebuttal, “Let’s Not Underrate Emotional Intelligence,” questioning the specific assessment of EI used by Grant, and referring to the various studies conducted by “The Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence.” And the comments fly.”

More via Ignore Emotional Intelligence at Your Own Risk – Claudio Fernández-Aráoz – Harvard Business Review.

Filed under: access to education, Blogosphere, Culture Think, Pop-Psychology, WeSeeReason

Gap in Diet Quality Between Wealthiest and Poorest Americans Doubles, Study Finds

Healthy food is not easy to prepare, does not have a very long shelf life, and is more expensive than cheaper canned and mass produced “food” that contains fillers and other ingredients that return adequate profits, facilitate transportation, refrigeration, and distribution.

America’s food consumption and health connection problem goes well beyond socioeconomic issues of lack of cash and proximity and access to healthy food.  Our society’s economy produces commodities and commodities are distributed based on market forces of supply and demand.  Supply and demand pressures have thus far overpowered the traditional forces on the side of promoting community health.  The loosing forces are:

  • Social do-gooders
  • Philanthropy
  • Public health officials
  • Conscientious parents
  • Suburban focused and lead prevention efforts

In short, economic forces have thus far trumped social ideas and groups aiming to undo what are basically the macro and micro consequences of food production and distribution.

Any successful efforts in this area will have to have for-profit corporations at the table with philanthropy and government officials providing public policy leadership and incentives that appeal to corporate America’s economic interests and social responsibility (good corporate citizen) commitments.

More via Gap in Diet Quality Between Wealthiest and Poorest Americans Doubles, Study Finds.

Filed under: ACA and Medicaid, Behavioral Health Outcomes, Blogosphere, Health Literacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, News, Parenting, Philanthropy, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms, Public Health, Public Policy

RWJF Initiative on the Future of Nursing | The information from the experts has been published. What are you and other community stakeholders doing about it?

Are you familiar with the RWJ report titled “The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health” by the Committee on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing, at the Institute of Penn Medicine (University of Pennsylvania Health System)?

As we know, initiatives like the one that produced this report, as recent as 2011, come and go.  What remains is the report and what committed professional like yourself and our colleagues do with the information.

We at The Policy ThinkShop were inspired by a nurse colleague not only to pullout this report but to post a comment on our blog for your benefit.

The link to the report follows:

http://www.thefutureofnursing.org/sites/default/files/Future%20of%20Nursing%20Report_0.pdf

According to the report:

“In 2008, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) approached the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to propose a partnership to assess and respond to the need to transform the nursing profession. Recognizing that the nursing profession faces several challenges in fulfilling the promise of a reformed health care system and meeting the nation’s health needs, RWJF and the IOM established a 2-year Initiative on the Future of Nursing. The cornerstone of the initiative is this committee, which was tasked with producing a report containing recommendations for an action-oriented blueprint for the future of nursing, including changes in public and institutional policies at the national, state, and local levels (Box S-1). Following the report’s release, the IOM and RWJF will host a national conference on November 30 and December 1, 2010, to begin a dialogue on how the report’s recommendations can be translated into action. The report will also serve as the basis for an extensive implementation phase to be facilitated by RWJF.”

The report explains the committee of experts charge in producing the study and report as follows:

The committee may examine and produce recommendations related to the following issues, with the goal of identifying vital roles for nurses in designing and implementing a more effective and efficient health care system:

  • Reconceptualizing the role of nurses within the context of the entire workforce, the shortage, societal issues, and current and future technology;
  • Expanding nursing faculty, increasing the capacity of nursing schools, and redesigning nursing education to assure that it can produce an adequate number of well prepared nurses able to meet current and future health care demands;
  • Examining innovative solutions related to care delivery and health professional education by focusing on nursing and the delivery of nursing services; and
  • Attracting and retaining well prepared nurses in multiple care settings, including acute, ambulatory, primary care, long term care, community and public health.

“In 2008, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation approached the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to propose a partnership between the two organizations. The resulting collaboration became the two-year Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Initiative on the Future of Nursing at the IOM. The committee was chaired by former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and the goal was to look at the possibility of transforming the nursing profession to meet the challenges of a changing health care landscape. The report produced by the committee, The Future of Nursing: Leading Change, Advancing Health, makes specific and directed recommendations in the areas of nurse training, education, professional …”

More on the initiative via About | RWJF Initiative on the Future of Nursing.

Filed under: ACA and Medicaid, Blogosphere, Health Literacy, Health Policy, Healthcare Reform, Leadership, Maternal and Child Health, News, Philanthropy, Policy ThinkShop Comments on other media platforms, Public Health, Public Policy,

Creativity and the Role of the Leader – Harvard Business Review

The folks at the Harvard Business Review recently convened a large group of highly motivated and intelligent individuals to discuss and promote best practices in the area of fostering creativity at work and the role of leadership in doing so.

Although we sometimes feel that our work environments demand so much focus on ongoing deadlines and desired outcomes that there is little time for stepping back and reflecting, taking chances on new ideas or even finding time to discuss and contemplate alternatives can be possible.   It’s nice to see that leading thought places like HBR are promoting initiatives, concepts and activities in the workplace that allow for consideration of priorities that include some of our most intimate personal needs.  These needs include our ability to think and contribute in creative ways; which is ideal for us in terms of our careers and self actualization, and for the organizations we work to improve.

The article in HBR addresses important conditions for allowing creativity to flow in the workplace:

“Three conditions seemed to him to be necessary for novelty—slack, hubris, and optimism …”

via Creativity and the Role of the Leader – Harvard Business Review.

Filed under: Blogosphere, Culture, Culture Think, , ,

Getting Cross-Cultural Teamwork Right | HBR Article Policy ThinkShop Review

Cultural diversity and cultural conflict at the workplace are often treated as simple communication problems.  Are we oversimplifying cross cultural communication? Is it more than just being patient and trying to be nice? This HBR article opens an important conversation …. What do you think?

Although I think that articles like this one begin to give us the ideas, examples and interpersonal communicative behaviors necessary for navigating intercultural communication and interaction, I do think we need to acknowledge the role of leadership and power relationships.

For example, when two individuals are having conflict based on communication issues alone, this sort of cross-cultural relationship management works well. However, cross-cultural and international collaborations are difficult for the same reasons that all business collaborations are hard; they are challenging because there are competing agendas, whether these be interpersonal (personal career considerations) or inter organizational (each organization has a particular agenda and value expectations regarding the collaboration).

When we interact as individuals on our “home company” team’s behalf, we are performers on that team and our participation impacts how well we do back home; where, after all, is where we get our bonuses, our reputations, and how we are measured regarding home company people we naturally complete with.

Also, the cultural interaction abroad is greatly colored by power relationships of differing status; for example, when they are either asymmetrical, equal or of longer or shorter duration.

Cross cultural communication is quite complex–often, the challenges of cultural dissonance are relatively minor when we take into account the many variables that drive human behavior, interpersonal communication, and context variables that drive business motivation and goals.

Read the article and see the Policy ThinkShop comments by Paul

http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/09/getting-cross-cultural-teamwork-right/

via Welcome! | LinkedIn.

Filed under: Blogosphere, Culture Think,

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,253 other followers

ThePolicyThinkShop @Twitter

Health Alert!

Patriotic Clean, we're headed for deep waters!  It's your choice ...
Conflict at work: Stick to your principles

Conflict at work: Stick to your principles and they will take you far ...

Resources and Latests News: Top Clicks

  • None

Who we are:


Public Policy for the rest of us...

Provided by: PolicyABCs

Moderated by: The Policy Think Shop

Categories

We are on Twitter too!

!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

Recent Posts from our new PolicyABCs Blog: PolicyABCs ... "Thinks with us ..."

We cannot load blog data at this time.

Thank you for visiting. Here are ways you can stay connected to us.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,253 other followers

Goodreads

The ThinkShop promotes connections to all forms of social media to bring you resources beyond what you’ll find in your daily routine…

How Hispanics Describe Themselves

How Hispanics Describe Themselves

Poli Thinkshop

Create Your Badge

Take a "Brain Break" and visit this "fun link" by clicking this image now...

Break for Fun… click video below or have more fun by clicking the pic above…

Policy ThinkShop: Relax, we did the research for you…

Welcome to Policy ABC's ThinkShop, where getting news and public policy analysis is as easy as "A B C."

"The Policy ThinkShop team works hard researching the latests and most interesting news and reports. The resulting links will point you to the original sources so that you can spend as little time as possible getting the most news possible."

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,253 other followers

The Policy ThinkShop

ThinkShop Wordle

The Policy ThinkShop

Public Policy and Culture

Policy ThinkShop Resources

Policy ThinkShop Resources for your policy work

Our experts do the searching and serve up the best resources to help you stay on top of key public policy issues.

Featured Twitter Friend: Health Literacy ABCs

Health Literacy

Twitter Friend: MigrationPundit

Open door policy?

Policy ThinkShop: “THINK TOGETHER”

"Policy is codified knowledge that stands as a universal guide for social action. Public policy is shaped by those who know and who act on that knowledge. We at The Policy ThinkShop share information so others can think and act in the best possible understanding of "The Public Interest."
%d bloggers like this: