Human Resource Planning Discussion Question: How will staffing, compensation, employee relations, training, and performance management need to be accounted
Human Resource Planning Discussion Question: How will staffing, compensation, employee relations, training, and performance management need to be accounted for differently in the HR plan?
Strategic planning is essential for successful health care organizations. Alignment between organizational strategic plans and human resource strategic plans is crucial to effectiveness. When developing organizational plans to address expansion or new services, for example, organizations must be sure to develop human resource plans that support the organizational strategy, as the key to changing organizational direction is through human resource planning. For this Discussion, you examine the following scenario and work with your team to address questions related to human resource strategic planning.
Scenario: The Memorial Hospital is a community-based hospital in an urban area plans to expand its patient care delivery model from focusing extensively on inpatient care to becoming a leader in ambulatory care. The mission of Memorial Healthcare is serving humanity by providing exceptional and cost-effective health care accessible to all. Furthermore, the vision is for Memorial Hospital to be a magnet-status health care provider, continually raising the standards of performance excellence and advancing the health status of the community. In doing so, Memorial Hospital acknowledges its values of compassionate service, ownership/pride, privacy, safety, accountability, teamwork, attitude, appearance, communication, and fun.
Current state:
300-bed hospital
1,000 employees
Limited ambulatory focus, which is primarily supported by free-standing independent physician practices
Declining revenues from inpatient admissions
Considering closing as many as 100 beds, as it transitions from an inpatient focused organization to an outpatient
To prepare for this Discussion:
The Instructor assigned your team a question that relates to human resource strategic planning. Reflect on the scenario and assigned question, and as a team, begin discussing how you would respond to the question. Be sure to approach the question from the perspective of an administrator developing a human resource strategic plan for the hospital in the provided scenario.
EXCELLENT GOOD FAIR POOR
Discussion Posting Content
Points:
Points Range: 9 (37.5%) – 9 (37.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 8 (33.33%) – 8 (33.33%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 7 (29.17%) – 7 (29.17%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (25%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
Peer Feedback and Interaction
Points:
Points Range: 5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
The feedback postings, and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Feedback:
Team Participation
Points:
Points Range: 5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was well documented. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed a depth of contribution to the team effort.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion thread showed full participation to the team effort.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was not fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed only minimal contribution to the team effort.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was poorly addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed poor contribution to the team effort.
Feedback:
Writing
Points:
Points Range: 5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.
Feedback:
Points:
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Show DescriptionsShow Feedback
DISCUSSION POSTING CONTENT–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT9 (37.5%) – 9 (37.5%)
Discussion posting demonstrates an excellent understanding of all of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides significant detail including multiple relevant examples, evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
GOOD8 (33.33%) – 8 (33.33%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a good understanding of most of the concepts and key points presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting provides moderate detail (including at least one pertinent example), evidence from the readings and other scholarly sources, and discerning ideas.
FAIR7 (29.17%) – 7 (29.17%)
Discussion posting demonstrates a fair understanding of the concepts and key points as presented in the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting may be lacking or incorrect in some area, or in detail and specificity, and/or may not include sufficient pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
POOR0 (0%) – 6 (25%)
Discussion posting demonstrates poor or no understanding of the concepts and key points of the text/s and Learning Resources. Posting is incorrect and/or shallow and/or does not include any pertinent examples or provide sufficient evidence from the readings.
Feedback:
PEER FEEDBACK AND INTERACTION–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are excellent and fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
GOOD4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
The feedback postings and responses to questions are good but may not fully contribute to the quality of interaction by offering constructive critique, suggestions, in-depth questions, additional resources, and stimulating thoughts and/or probes.
FAIR3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
The feedback postings, and responses to questions only partially contribute to the quality of interaction by offering insufficient constructive critique or suggestions, shallow questions, or providing poor quality additional resources.
POOR0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Student does not interact with peers (0 points) or the feedback postings and responses to questions do not contribute to the quality of interaction by offering any constructive critique, suggestions, questions, or additional resources.
Feedback:
TEAM PARTICIPATION–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was well documented. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed a depth of contribution to the team effort.
GOOD4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion thread showed full participation to the team effort.
FAIR3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was not fully addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed only minimal contribution to the team effort.
POOR0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Adherence to the Team Charter was poorly addressed. Participation in the team Discussion Thread showed poor contribution to the team effort.
Feedback:
WRITING–
Levels of Achievement:
EXCELLENT5 (20.83%) – 5 (20.83%)
Postings are well organized, use scholarly tone, contain original writing and proper paraphrasing, follow APA style, contain very few or no writing and/or spelling errors, and are fully consistent with graduate level writing style.
GOOD4 (16.67%) – 4 (16.67%)
Postings are mostly consistent with graduate level writing style. Postings may have some small organization, scholarly tone, writing, or APA style issues, and/or may contain a few writing and spelling errors.
FAIR3 (12.5%) – 3 (12.5%)
Postings are somewhat below graduate level writing style. Postings may be lacking in organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and/or contain many writing and/or spelling errors, or show moderate reliance on quoting vs. original writing and paraphrasing.
POOR0 (0%) – 2 (8.33%)
Postings are well below graduate level writing style expectations for organization, scholarly tone, APA style, and writing, or show heavy reliance on quoting.
Feedback:
Total Points: 24
Name: USW1_MMHA_6500_Week02_teamDiscussionRubric
