澳門疾控中心人才管理與工作間社區發展

澳門疾控中心人才管理與工作間社區發展

第十屆粵港澳台預防醫學學術會議湯家耀醫生2013.05.25

CDC is people

Strategic human resource management / Talent management

Integrating human resource management

strategies and systems to achieve the overall

mission, strategies, and success of the firm

while meeting the needs of employees and other

stakeholders

Integrates a dynamic process of sourcing,

identifying and assessing, developing and

retaining talent, and ending with the right people

at the right time for promotion and succession

人才數量

人才質量

澳門公共部門人才管理特點人才管理過程人力資源工作公共部門特點

Sourcing

Job analysis 由法例訂定 ,常與實際需要或戰略優次不一致

Planning 主要由上級喜好和預算可得性決定

Recruitment 法例硬性規定 ,不能採用主動招聘方法

Selection 法例硬性規定 ,許多方法不能採用


Identifying & assessing

Performance appraisal

法例硬性規定 ,有嚴重缺陷 ,評價和獎賞人才的效能很低

Developing

Training 常為自發性 ,沒有戰略計劃

Career planning法例硬性規定 ,與個人意願 ,績效 ,潛能和戰略優次等無關


Retaining

Motivation 基本上沒有合法和可行的外源性激勵措施

Reward 薪俸由法例硬性規定 ,與績效無關

Ending

Promotion 主要由上級喜好決定 ,與績效或潛力無關

Succession 常為反應性 ,沒有戰略計劃

澳門 CDC 人才管理策略1. Creating a supportive environment

for talent

2. Developing talent in service

3. Sourcing talent

1. Creating a supportive environment for talent

1. Participatory review of organizational value,

vision and strategic priority

2. Introducing new leading / management style,

new identities of leader and followers and new

leader-followers relationship

3. Empowering staff and enriching work

4. Reinforcing autonomy together with share and

support

5. Advocating for worker’s well-being

Servant leadership

Source: developed for this research

2. Developing talent in service

1. Adopt a systematic and strategic approach,

integrating the elements of induction program,

in service training, mentoring and rotation

2. Assessing competency, performance and

potential

3. Reinforcing team learning and organization

learning

4. Sharing responsibility for talent development

3. Sourcing talent

1. Advocate for top management buy-in of human

resources plan

2. Develop effective selection tools

Participatory review of organizational value, vision and strategic priority

使命：疾病預防控制中心是衛生局轄下的公共衛生技術單位，參與履行衛生局促進及保障健康、預防疾病的職能，專責統籌和執行群體水平的疾病預防控制工作。

願景：成為公共衛生人才中心，推動澳門公共衛生事業發展；與其他部門、各界組織和民眾共同努力，保護和促進澳門人口的健康，為澳門的可持續發展作出貢獻。

價值：忠誠盡責，團隊合作，專業求實，自強不息。

工作間的二重性

社區 Community

科層組織 Bureaucratic organization

Community – a solution for government failure? Governments are facing significant internal and external

challenges and have to find ways to surpass the problem of underperformance (Klitgaard & Light, 2005).

It is unrealistic to expect workers to be motivated to use empowerment practice and to be successful with clients if the workers themselves feel powerless in their work (Cohen & Austin, 1997).

Communities have a wealth of untapped resources and energy that can be harnessed and mobilized (WHO, 2002).

In organizations, better performance can be produced by a combined organization-community form, i.e. “merging the best of two worlds” (Brown & Isaacs, 1994).

Community development (CD) A process designed to create conditions

of economic and social progress for the whole community with its active participation and the fullest possible reliance on the community's initiative (United Nations, 1955).

Jack Rothman’s “Three Models”, 1968

Source: Rothman et al, 2001, p.48

Understanding of Community interventions


Critical Components of Community Empowerment, Rissel, 1994,

Source: Rissel, 1994, p.45

Community development and health promotion / public health Community development is becoming one of the most

popular subjects in the context of public health interventions. Although an accurate definition of community development is problematic, a reasonable description would be the empowerment of a community to obtain self reliance and control over the factors that affect their health (Hossain et al, 2004).

Health promotion is one of the major focus areas of community development (Faris and Peterson, 2000; Federation of Community Work Training Groups, 2001), while community development is one of the key approaches and also “the true heart of health promotion” (WHO, 1998; Norheim, 1999; Macdowell et al, 2006; Irvine, 2007; William & Marks, 2011).

Powerlessness in community development / health promotion organizations Many of us are relatively powerless in our organizations,

and need to claim a legitimacy or power for ourselves in order to be effective in our work with less powerful groups external to our organization… Community development, as a pertinent example, has been pithily if cynically described as the point at which the organizationally powerless meet the socially powerless (Labonte, 1993).

Despite the emphasis on empowerment practice, little attention has been paid to the needs of social workers who may feel powerless working in traditional, highly centralized, top-down organizational settings commonly used to deliver social services (Cohen & Austin, 1997).

Workplace as community To view workplace as community is not new

The mechanic view of organization remains in dominance: most managers most of the times are satisfied to put

aside the community within organization as “informal structures” and “covert rules”

in best case they respond with certain techniques from the management toolbox

Workplace community development (WCD)

WCD is still theoretical and normative Merging the best of two worlds (Brown and

Isaacs, 1994)

Building community into organizations (Brown, 2006)

Fostering Organizational Social Capital (Woods, 2008)

Can Macao CDC staff be empowered with CD approach, before they use CD approach to empower the people?


《 Workplace Community Development - Empowering Employees in a Public Service: A field research 》

Paradigm: qualitative

Purpose: exploratory

Time: longitudinal case study

Methodology: field research

Quantitative and qualitative pathways in social sciences


WCD Intervention


Data collection Participant observation

Unstructured interview

Introspection

Sampling In terms of time, locations, people, facts and

psychological stances

Forms Characteristics

− Written or spoken words, non-verbal communications

− Behaviors, actions, activities

− Confrontations, interactions

− Situations, incidents, events

− New, unusual, unanticipated

− Atypical, deviant

− Expected but not happened

− Seemingly related, positively or negatively, to participatory management, workplace community and community initiative, staff power and empowerment, job satisfaction, performance


Data analysis


Themes

1. Sense of community

2. Participation / Collaboration

3. Capacity / Power

4. Performance

5. Satisfaction

6. Conflicts

7. Dilemmas

Summary of findings

1. The WCD intervention led to a community dialogue and interaction process, characterized by Self development,

Community dynamics,

Tangible outputs, and

Ongoing social construction.

Characterization of WCD process


Summary of findings

2. Active participation and collaboration had been a major theme in the process, while structural differences in participation and latent resistance probably existed.

3. Community members consciously contributed to the organizational goals and values.

Participation in E-dialogues


Summary of findings

4. Staff perceived partial empowerment, probably reflecting that some power relations had been changed but the power structure remains.

5. Some part of the staff perceived improvement in overall performance and satisfaction.

Perceived increases


Summary of findings

6. Some collaborative bottom-up initiatives with primary concern of capacity building for organizational goals were observed.

7. Nothing really surprising was observed, but conflicts seemed naturally strengthened.

Summary of findings8. Perception of the WCD process was

complex, heterogeneous, structured, and probably subject to determinants of structural, interfacing, and personal origins. The perceptions of the developer, active community members, and new comers, were largely cross-matched. For these key participants, the WCD process had led to positive and meaningful social interactions and changes.

Intersubjectivity


Perceived intervention effects


Attributions of improvements


Conclusions

1. Field research enables a much deeper and richer learning from a social process in a specific context.

2. Workplace bureaucracy–community duality is supported and WCD is legitimate.

3. WCD is practicable.

Conclusions

4. There may be a synergy between WCD and talent management Raising sense of community, strengthening

participation and joint actions, and increasing self-efficacy and capacity of community;

Promoting joint visioning, shared understanding and consensual resolutions;

Empowering both the community members and the developer, and probably increasing human and social capitals of the organization;

Positive impacts on organizational performance and satisfaction.

Conclusions

5. WCD induces an ongoing social construction.

6. The developer/manager in practice has to be conscious to and learn to live with multiple contradictions.

Implications for theory Community

Community intervention

Community development

Workplace community development

Community – defining features


“Three Elements” as alternative to Rothman’s Three Models


Community development process model


ContradictionsDriving forces Goals vs drivers

Axiology vs pragmatism

Power vs powerlessness

Participants Manager vs developer

Inclusiveness vs structure

Interactions Needs vs assets

Catalysis vs ownership

Manipulation vs self-determination

Empowering vs disempowering

Collaboration vs conflict

Wholeness vs heterogeneity

Equity vs system

Products & outcomes Capacity vs improvement

Effectiveness vs understanding


Differences between geographic and workplace communitiesGeographic communities Workplace communities

Goals and values State and local goals in a whole- and-parts

relationship, often based on shared or

compatible values

Organization goals and values are primary,

mandatory, and possibly incompatible with

community goals and values

Power structure Government hierarchy is one dominant power

structure, often counterbalanced by the market,

civil society and media

Management hierarchy is the single dominant

power structure, seldom counterbalanced

internally

Developer Government, external assistant agency, local

NGO and local leaders may play the role as

developer

Managers must play a key role, emerging

leaders, contracted external consultants, and

worker unions seem also possible play the role

as developer

Community

members

Community members are not organized in one

command hierarchy

All community members are organized on

hierarchical levels in command lines

Organization

development

Often involves building informal groups, formal

NGOs and networks, independent of the

government

May be in forms of autonomous work group,

quality circle, worker council, etc., must be

supported by the management


Recommendations for practice: CD

Area of practice

Dynamic context and balance of three elements

Move of the balance

Contradictions

Recommendations for practice: WCD

1. Do use both bureaucratic and community perspectives to view and understand the workplace and its dynamics;

2. Clarify organization goals and values and management positions to CD values and principles;

3. Assess organization well-being and workplace community well-being, as well as the relation between them;


4. Map the workplace community balance on the two continua of activeness – passiveness and collaboration – conflict;

5. Assess if there are pragmatic reasons that requires a move of the community balance towards the angle of CD;

6. Be aware of particular indications for WCD.

7. Check if there are possible precautions for WCD.

Particular indications for WCD Organization that is to develop its client communities;

Organization that needs not only strong management but also autonomy, creativity and innovation from the staff, so as to accomplish complex and exigent missions, and effectively respond to critical threats and opportunities;

Organization that is heavily constrained by the bureaucracy, manifesting illnesses of inefficiency, indifference, group thinking, social loafing, conflicts and separatism; and most important,

Organization where people are not feeling well about their workplace.

Possible precautions for WCD Organization goals and values are considered

incompatible and irreconcilable with workplace community goals and values;

Organization that needs to perform under absolute dominance of power structure and quiescence of community members, e.g., an army.


8. May apply the common theories, methods, and techniques of CD, while paying attention to differences between workplace communities and geographic communities;

9. Be prepared to change one’s self first so as to work with the colleagues in new ways;

10. Live with and learn from the rich contradictions in WCD process, while retain all the time the simple and basic truth: the activeness and collaboration of community members.

Recommendations for practice: use of WCD as talent management strategy Be aware of and prepared for the need of

self-changing before catalyzing changes in environment and others;

Be aware of and prepared for that WCD does not limit its perspective to motivate workers for technical capacity building and organization performance, but goes much further to empower community members to define and develop their common future.

Of the best leaders,

when the task is accomplished,

the people all remark:

We have done it ourselves.

(Lao Tzu, 580BC)

太上，下知有之……功成事遂，百姓皆謂我自

然。

《道德經》十七章

澳門疾控中心人才管理與工作間社區發展

Business