Archetypes In Iamas

International Medical graduates (IMGs) study five to eight years in their country to become doctors. When they come to the Unites States, they often struggle with a new language and standardized tests. For this reason, many foreign doctors like myself, decide to explore alternative pathways into a healthcare career. Nevertheless, even if a foreign medical graduate speaks the language and passes all the test, there is still a 50% chance that they cannot advance their careers compared to the 94% chance Seniors in US medical schools have (Bailey, 2016). Both international medical graduates and US medical graduates learn the same conceptual information. However, there is a point where IMGs are learning practical clinical skills and US graduates are receiving the resources to pass the licensing exam, prep their resumes and learn the systems. Therefore, it’s not a matter of who knows more medicine but who has the most resources allocated to succeed in the formal process. Success to the Successful? Success to the Successful archetype describes the common practice of rewarding good performance with more resources in the expectation that performance will continue to improve (Braun, 2002). In essence, two activities compete for limited support or resources; the more successful one becomes, the more support it gains, thereby limiting the other (Senge, 2006). The potential downside to this assumption is the continued under-performance of people, departments or products that perform at their current level through no intrinsic lack of skill or capability (Braun, 2002). Archetypes can be seen as lenses, as structural pattern templates, as dynamics scripts or theories, and as tools for predicting behavior (Kim, 2000). Archetypes do not describe any one problem specifically (Braun, 2002). They describe families of problems generically (Braun, 2002). Their value comes from the insights they offer into the dynamic interaction of complex systems (Braun, 2002). Although, I chose to view this situation through the …show more content…
Rather than hinder or help, it allows me to ask the questions, and explore the complex systems. Archetypes are not used to dictate behavior but to leverage them. Learning to see structures within which we operate begins a process of freeing ourselves from previously unseen forces and ultimately mastering the ability to work with them and change them (Senge, 2006). Systems archetypes or generic structures embody the key to learning to see structures in our personal and organizational lives (Senge, 2006). The systems archetypes reveal an incredibly elegant simplicity underlying the complexity of management of issues (Senge, 2006). “Success to the Successful” is not fair, though the successful work had to believe that they deserve the favors the system accords them (Meadows, 1996). “Success to the Successful” rewards the winner of a competition with the means to win again. It is especially perverse if it also penalizes losers (Meadows, …show more content…
They are that part of an organization, which represents keys to “pattern recognition” activities, incorporated in the discipline of system thinking (Gillies & Maliapen, 2008). They can be used diagnostically to reveal insights into the structure that already exists, or prospectively to anticipate potential problems and/or problem symptoms (Braun, 2002). Use them with the other systems thinking tools that are available (Braun, 2002). As part of a suite of tools, they are extremely valuable in developing broad understandings about organizations and their environments, and contribute to more effectively understanding problems (Braun, 2002). “We don’t need better solutions, we need better thinking about problems (Braun,