Instructions:
This assessment requires you to apply leadership skills and strategies explored in the subject as a team. You will be divided into groups. The teams will be provided a public health scenario in which collaboration and change management is required. The scenario will describe a public health related problem where a change is required, and different types of leadership roles are in consideration. Your task is to apply knowledge from this subject and critical thinking on how to respond to this scenario as a team.
Part 3.1 of the assessment required you to apply leadership skills and strategies explored in the subject as a team and deliver a group presentation (30%).
Part 1: Group Presentation (15 mins; 30%)
Focusing on the challenges in the scenario, each team will present an analysis of how leadership, power, ethics, and values affect each other and subsequently, provide strategies for collaboration and effective change management. (Please note that each scenario must be addressed by the team focusing on that specific context)
As a team you are required to undertake secondary research and apply knowledge from this subject to develop a comprehensive understanding of the event. Then the team will use critical thinking on how to respond to this event. Your team will prepare and complete a two-part presentation (case analysis and recommendations).
Your group is led by a Chief Health Officer, in one of the states in charge of managing the Covid19 out
eak. The team members will assume that they have their professional strengths (real background) and values as well as personal leadership strengths (so if you have a medical background – you assume this in the team, etc.). In support of the Chief Medical Officer the team consists of epidemiologists, infectious disease physicians, nurses, paramedics, etc... (optional) this will be discussed in class. Your group needs to deal with communities, stakeholders in the government (local) and federal, hospitals, organizations, public health entities, and programs. Consider people, strengths, and weaknesses in each city. The team will need to undertake research of the geographic regions and their politics before proposing potential interventions. Focus on also how to facilitate changes using your group members and in dealing with the stakeholders.
Presentation Part A: Analysis
In this section your team will provide a critical analysis of the case using leadership theories and concepts.
1. a) Â Identify from six to eight primary stakeholders and analyse their relevance to the decision made by CHO
2. b) Â Analyse the sources and types of power held by CHO and each stakeholder identified in Point a)
3. c)  Critique the various types of leadership used in the case study – this includes CHO and selected representatives (min 4) for each of the stakeholders
Presentation Part B: Recommendations
In this section using the findings of the analyses in Part A your team will present its recommendations using theories from the subject.
a) What processes and activities will your group use to achieve stakeholder collaboration and empowerment?
I. With whom do you need to collaborate and what concepts will you use to facilitate collaboration?
ii. How can you empower the people you lead while ensuring there is good governance (sharing responsibility, accountability, and power)?
) How will you and your select stakeholders positively effect change?
i. What change model/theory will you use and why
ii. What ethical approach should be taken by the stakeholders and why?
iii. What impediments or limitations must be addressed through your leadership to achieve the desired change and goal?
iv. What action plan will you use to facilitate change management in response to the scenario?
Assessment Criteria:
Your assessment will be assessed against the following criteria:
• Effectively integrates the analysis of stakeholders, leadership, power, ethics, and values in different leadership roles (25%)
• Effectively applies strategies to facilitate collaboration and empowerment of others and governance (including accountability) (25%)
Ru
ics
References need to go through and must include.
· Browning, H. (2013) Taking ownership of your responsibility, Centre for Creative Leadership, Kings Fund UK. Available in the To
ens University Australia Li
ary database.
· Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M XXXXXXXXXXWhat type of leadership behaviours are functional in teams? A Meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly. 17(3), 288-307.
· Callahan, D., & Jennings, B XXXXXXXXXXEthics and public health: Forging a strong relationship. American Journal of Public Health, 92(2), 69-176.
· Healey, B. J., & Lesneski, C. D. (2011). Transforming Public Health Practice: Leadership and Management Essentials. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
· Johnson, A., & Paton, K XXXXXXXXXXHealth Promotion and Health Services: Management for Change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press
· Laverack, G. (2009). Public health: Power, empowerment, and professional practice (2nd ed.) Hampshire, England: Palgrave-MacMillan.
· Molyneux, S., Atela, M., Angwenyi, V. & Goodman, C XXXXXXXXXXCommunity accountability at peripheral health facilities: a review of the empirical literature and development of a conceptual framework. Health Policy Planning,27(7), 541-554.
· Northouse, P.G. (2009) Leadership Theory and Practice. 5th LA. Sage Publications.
Case scenario
Case 1. Sutton's career in balance as hotel quarantine saga enters final lap.
An hour before the gates of Albert Park were due to open for the 2020 Formula 1 Grand Prix Victoria’s Chief Health Officer Professor Brett Sutton informed the Victorian State Government the event should be cancelled. As Prof Sutton detailed that in a ‘Melbourne hospital, Victoria’s first mystery case had just been diagnosed; a confirmed COVID-19 infection which could not be traced to international travel’. With an unknown source there was potential for rapid transmission. There were numerous additional factors for consideration which included:
o Cancellation of the Grand Prix would have significant economic and social impact upon Victoria
o Covid19 and various new strains was rampant in Europe where most of the teams and crews would a
ive from
o Major events such as the Grand Prix must be considered as ‘SuperSpreader’ activities which could place the
oader community at risk
An hour before the gates of Albert Park were due to open to grand prix fans, an email from Brett Sutton landed in the inbox of Health Minister Jenny Mikakos. Its tone was matter of fact, its reasons laid out and its conclusion clear: the race should not go ahead as planned.
The night before, a member of the McLaren Formula One team had tested positive to COVID-19, the novel coronavirus raging across Europe. In a Melbourne hospital, Victoria’s first mystery case had just been diagnosed; a confirmed COVID-19 infection which could not be traced to international travel or another case. Victoria’s Chief Health Officer told Ms Mikakos he’d consulted with Australia’s Chief Medical Officer and infectious disease and epidemiological experts.
Chief Health Officer Professor Brett Sutton. Credit: Justin McManus
“I therefore recommend the cancellation of the remainder of the Australian Grand Prix, as soon as feasible,’’ Professor Sutton wrote in the previously unpublished advice obtained by The Age under freedom of information laws. He added that, as an alternative, the public health risk of staging the event could be mitigated by keeping the gates closed and having the cars lap a deserted circuit.
Victoria's Chief Medical Officer Brett Sutton has been asked for an explanation over contradictory evidence to the Hotel Quarantine inquiry. Within two hours, Premier Daniel Andrews stepped out of a COAG meeting in western Sydney and made public the advice. The lights at Albert Park never turned green. Professor Sutton, a little known public health official in the first year of his job, had wheel-clamped an $8 billion global motor sport.
After Professor Sutton issued his advice, race organisers cancelled the Australian Grand.
Contrast this with Professor Sutton’s inaction two weeks later when Victoria and other states and te
itories moved to block the importation of coronavirus by subjecting returned travellers to 14 days of mandatory hotel quarantine.
Professor Sutton told the Coate inquiry he had no direct involvement in the planning, approving or running of Victoria’s hotel quarantine program, no personal involvement in implementing infection prevention and control a
angements and first learnt private security guards were being used after the virus
oke out of the hotels.
Such was Professor Sutton’s apparent distance from what was happening inside these hotels, he was "not sufficiently aware of the details" to form a view about whether the program was set up properly or not, he told the inquiry.
The Coate inquiry, armed with belatedly produced emails which appear to contradict aspects of this sworn testimony, this week announced its intention to serve Professor Sutton with additional questions. His answers may determine whether he continues to lead Victoria’s public health response to the pandemic.
As he prepares his reply, written communications obtained under FOI between Professor Sutton, Mr Andrews, Ms Mikakos and their respective offices in the weeks su
ounding the establishment of the state’s hotel quarantine program provide insight into the role he played at a critical stage of Victoria’s COVID-19 response.
The communications reveal Professor Sutton’s hands-on involvement in providing advice about overseas death rates, transmission rates in schools and the public health criteria for releasing COVID patients from isolation. They show that on most things COVID, the CHO kept a close eye on the details.
On March 21, the day before Mr Andrews announced Victoria would shut down all non- essential services, Professor Sutton emailed his Department of Health and Human Services bosses with suggested changes to the public health message.
Rather than wash hands, people should be told to wash their hands frequently, he said. Rather than press a traffic light or lift button with an elbow, they should also be encouraged to use their knuckle or a pen. “Have you ever tried pressing a lift button with your elbow?’’ he wrote. “Needs other options.’’
At 7.46am on March 12, he sent his race-stopping advice to Ms Mikakos about the grand prix. On March 26, the day before national cabinet met and approved the introduction of hotel quarantine, Professor Sutton sent Ms Mikakos modelling showing the importance of stopping the spread of COVID-19 from returned travellers.
Victoria’s cumulative caseload was above 200 and growing fast, driven overwhelmingly by infections acquired overseas. The modelling forecast that, unless infections acquired overseas were contained, total case numbers would explode tenfold. Professor Sutton told the Coate inquiry that at the time, he was “absolutely in support" of mandatory quarantine.
How can this be reconciled with his apparent dissociation from all aspects of the program and, according to his account, his lack of attention paid to an urgent email exchange