Kozan, S., & Blustein, D. L. (2018). Implementing social change: A qualitative analysis of counseling psychologists’ engagement in advocacy. | Source: The Counseling Psychologist, 46(2), 154-189.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0011000018756882
This study utilises qualitative content analysis to examine semi-structured interviews conducted with eleven practitioners trained in social justice-oriented counseling psychology doctoral programs. The findings fell into three aspects: participants’ development of a social justice orientation; different ways of implementing advocacy in practice, and; positioning advocacy in psychology. Resources and challenges in implementing advocacy in practice are discussed. The systemic barriers that limit psychologists' advocacy are also explored. The implications of the findings in terms of research, practice and training are discussed.
Melton, M. L. (2018). Ally, activist, advocate: Addressing role complexities for the multiculturally competent psychologist. | Source: Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(1), 83–89.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-00809-001
Psychologists are often called on to ally with, advocate for, and, become activists in using psychological science to improve the condition of individuals, organisations, and society. This article presents a practical application of advocacy, in all its forms, as a foundational and functional competency for psychology practitioners to strengthen psychology’s leadership in advocating for the psychological health and well-being for all individuals.
https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/overview/model-for-community-change-and-improvement/building-capacity/main
This website provides an overview of a model for community change, describing the steps and factors involved in the effective implementation of changes that help to build a healthier community. While elaborating on the parts of the model, the article also highlights some general ideas about the model, such as its fluidity and interactive nature.
Lewis, L. F., & Spich, R. S. (1996). Principled Negotiations, Evolutionary Systems Design and Group Support Systems: A Suggested Integration of Three Approaches to Improving Negotiations. | Source: Proceedings Of Hicss-29: 29th Hawaii International Conference On System Sciences (Vol. 3, pp. 238-250). IEEE.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221178195_Principled_Negotiation_Evolutionary_Systems_Design_and_Group_Support_Systems_A_Suggested_Integration_of_Three_Approaches_to_Improving_Negotiations
The article begins with a definition of what negotiation is, describing the typical negotiation situation, highlighting the potential difficulties that arise in negotiations. It explore principled negotiations as an effective and improved way of managing disputes and conflicts. It outlines the four key factors of principled negotiations: separate the people from the problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gain and; insist on using objective criteria. The article then outlines the four key factors of evolutionary systems design, and how each factor fits in with a principled negotiations factor. It further examines the group support system MeetingWorks, and establishes the fit between this and itself. It concludes by postulating the Evolutionary Systems Design as a useful framework for structuring the negotiation situation.
Hak, F. R., & Sanders, K. (2018). Principled negotiation: an evidence-based perspective. | Source: Evidence-based HRM: a Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship. Emerald Publishing Limited.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/EBHRM-03-2017-0014/full/html
This journal article explores the principled negotiation approach where strategies and techniques are used to shift attention of decision makers within negotiations from fixed positions towards interests so as to be able to create solutions that benefit both parties. It suggest that the principled negotiation approach is vulnerable to cognitive biases and cultural values and the importance of organisations recognising and knowing how to adapt this approach more effectively.
This document provides a more detailed overview of the four elements of Principled Negotiations of the Harvard Approach and provides specific tips from the authors FIsher and Ury.
Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages (1998) | Source: Peety, E., & Wegener, D.T. (1998) Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227-240.
http://www.gcss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Positive-Practice-Framework-April-2018-.pdf
The first factor that can impact the success of the persuasion attempt is the person communicating or the source of the persuasion. There are different ways that a source will be presented to us. However, sometimes during a persuasive attempt, the source is not clear or obvious. Research has found that credibility and attractiveness are important in successful persuasion.
https://www.ccl.org/articles/white-papers/learn-persuasion-skills/
Effectively engaging the Head, the Heart, and the Hands across the many people and situations that a leader encounters requires using a diverse set of persuasion skills. To shape direction, alignment, and commitment through interactions with others, leaders must be skilled in 6 areas: understanding and navigating organisations, Creating vidbility, Building and maintaining personal trustworthiness, Leveraging networks, and Clear communication.
The Clinical Leadership Competency Framework (CLCF) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework (MLCF) are also available to specifically provide staff with clinically based examples and learning and development scenarios across the five core domains shared with the Leadership Framework. Staff will exhibit a range of leadership behaviours across these seven domains dependent on the context in which they operate. It is essential that all staff are competent in each of the five core leadership domains: demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, improving services and setting direction. The other two domains, creating the vision and delivering the strategy, focus more on the role and contribution of individual leaders.
https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NHSLeadership-Leadership-Framework-Clinical-Leadership-Competency-Framework-CLCF.pdf
This booklet details the competency and qualities in five main domains (demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, improving services and setting directions.
https://ncwwi.org/index.php/resourcemenu/resource-library/leadership/1588-leadership-competency-framework-guide/file
The guides is divided into 5 domains (fundamental, leading change, leading in context, leading for results and leading people). The fundamental competencies include, use of self, communication, equity, vision, and integrity/honesty. Leading change competencies include, strategic thinking, building consensus, implementing, creating and innovating, and flexibility. The competencies for leading in context include, partnering, thinking politically, managing conflict, and influencing/negotiating. . Competencies for leading for results include, using data, accountability, planning and organising, and problem solving. Competencies for leading people includes, team building, developing others, resilience, influencing culture/climate, and cultural responsiveness.
https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NHSLeadership-Framework-CLCFSelfAssessmentTool.pdf
This article highlights types of competency such as, demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, improving services, and setting direction. The article includes a scale for self assessment across those competency domains.
https://www.leadershipacademy.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/NHSLeadership-Framework-LeadershipFrameworkSelfAssessmentTool.pdf
This article highlights types of competency such as, demonstrating personal qualities, working with others, managing services, improving services, and setting direction required for clinical leadership. The article includes a scale for self assessment across those competency domains.