Search results

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.

Lean Six Sigma (LSS) implementation follows a structured approach called define-measure-analyze-improve-control (DMAIC). Earlier research about its application in emergency healthcare services shows that it requires organizational transformation, which many healthcare setups find difficult. The Kotter change management model facilitates organizational transformation but has not been attempted in LSS settings till now. This study aims to integrate the LSS framework with the Kotter change management model to come up with an integrated framework that will facilitate LSS deployment in emergency health services.

Two-stage Delphi method was conducted by using a literature review. First, the success factors and barriers of LSS are investigated, especially from an emergency healthcare point of view. The features and benefits of Kotter's change management models are then reviewed. Subsequently, they are integrated to form a framework specific to LSS deployment in an emergency healthcare set-up. The elements of this framework are analyzed using expert opinion ratings. A new framework for LSS deployment in emergency healthcare has been developed, which can prevent failures due to challenges faced by organizations in overcoming resistance to changes.

The eight steps of the Kotter model such as establishing a sense of urgency, forming a powerful guiding coalition, creating a vision, communicating the vision, empowering others to act on the vision, planning for and creating short-term wins, consolidating improvements and producing still more change, institutionalizing new approaches are derived from the eight common errors that managers make while implementing change in the institution. The study integrated LSS principles and Kotter’s change management model to apply in emergency care units in order to reduce waste and raise the level of service quality provided by healthcare companies.

The present study could contribute knowledge to the literature by providing a framework to integrate lean management and Kotter's change management model for the emergency care unit of the healthcare organization. This framework guides decision-makers and organizations as proper strategies are required for applying lean management practices in any system.

The proposed framework is unique and no other study has prescribed any integrated framework for LSS implementation in emergency healthcare that overcomes resistance to change.