The article about Dr. Oz presents various set of concepts, ideas, and perspectives for what entails legitimate contributions to a given research field. A paradigm is a view or pattern of how things are expected to work as accepted by an individual or society.
This paper seeks to identify three items from Dr. Oz’s article and explore the importance of the concepts of a paradigm to the items. First is the knowledge about a supplement, which is referred to as green coffee extract. According to the article, this supplement serves as a solution to weight loss for many people.
This knowledge is based on a study that was critiqued and perceived as useless and later retracted on claims that it was not scientifically proven. Dr. Oz is trying to find a solution for weight loss. Why should individuals eat certain diets, but not others when they need to lose weight?
To Dr. Oz, taking green coffee is a paradigm and through his research, he tries to show what might happen to people who subscribe to his paradigm. To others, who retracted the use of green coffee, viewed this knowledge as the inappropriate paradigm.
Even though this knowledge is partly proven, some quarters in the medicine field like the British Medical Journal experts are not willing to let Dr. Oz intrude a field that they control.
Largely, they imply that any new knowledge should be subject to their approval and their interests catered in the process. Dr. Oz finds this bureaucracy unnecessary and derailing to any kind of progress in promoting human welfare.
The second issue is exercising, eating fruits, and sleeping right, which are natural approaches to a healthy life. Essentially, Dr. Oz seeks to sensitize people about a paradigm he thinks can be highly beneficial to their health after which research indicated it was worth in terms of weight loss.
However, despite giving the message to many people, who were unaware of the health dangers of obesity, this information was highly questioned by those who want to prescribe medications for personal gain. However, diversity of opinions leads to new knowledge.
Today’s disputed experiments have the potential to transform the future’s standard models in medicine. The third aspect is the individuals’ freedom to express own ideas and thoughts towards developing more knowledge in the treatment realm.
Dr. Oz’s way of creating change and expressing ideas is different from the conventional bureaucratic manner that most of his critics want him to follow in a bid to ensure that his ideas are kept to himself.
The bureaucratic system is a barrier to freedom of expression and without freely expressing thoughts, there would be no paradigm shift in the health sector. What is real or genuine? When do people recognize that something is genuine?
Dr. Oz shows that these elements can be determined through testing and experiments. The people’s perception and thoughts enable them to plan for the future by making decisions as to which information is dealt with, and which is ignored.
These decisions results in new knowledge and in most cases, they are influenced by various factors that may be complex for anyone to prove as reliable. Individuals cannot be aware of everything, but their perceptions.
Dr. Oz suggests that since the US offers the freedom of speech, everybody should feel free when expressing his/her ideas, which might have the potential to change things for good.
In the past decade, the United States’ security agents have highlighted the problems associated with the bureaucracy. Hummel indicates that managers have trouble controlling the bureaucratic structures and employees are less motivated working on the same.
Despite all the anticipated changes in the US security agents, it has proven difficult to avoid the bureaucratic machinery. Following the 9/11 attack in the US, critical decisions were made that resulted in a steady decline in quality operations by the Secret Service.
The US Congress and the George Bush administration enforced stringent bureaucratic measures, which have contributed to the current string of security loopholes in the White House.
These security lapses are attributable to the bureaucratic battles that gained root during the Bush administration. Now, they persist through the Obama administration.
To Hummel, strict bureaucratic procedures in most cases have created a cycle of stagnation in decision-making. Both the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security seem to be using the strategies designed in the 19thCentury, but twisted to respond to challenges of the 21stCentury.
The agency with the mandate of protecting the country’s leaders, for instance, needs leadership that is open to criticism, accountable to its lapses, and focused on a defined mission.
Leaders must be strong enough to push the Congress for enough funding, be transparent enough to ward off any sort of bureaucratic encroachment, and courageous to stop the president from playing loose with the security guidelines.
From Hummel’s viewpoint, bureaucratic values can lead to mistrust and lack of morale in policy implementation. Members of the current Congress have often expressed their distress about the ill will and lack of motivation that many security agents have developed towards their bosses.
Agents and officials are expected to be accountable to their bosses, yet they are not adequately involved in the decision-making process. This model can easily lead to a conflict of interest and result in serious security breaches.
For instance, a review of the September 19 incidence in which a man successfully jumped over the White House fence established that various agents on duty lacked the skills to stop the intruder. Others were not aware how the White House Communication procedures should have worked following such incidence.
A former DHS agent, Cummiskey, noted that such issues emerged from budget constraints. It is unthinkable when the lawmakers and the Obama administration slash budget for the Secret Service, thus crippling most of its activities.
Unfortunately, the problems face the officials on the grounds as they are expected to perform with the little budget. Even though the Secret Service budget is expected to go high in the year 2016, it has to pass the approval of lawmakers, and this process derails change.
Security issues will not wait until the budget is passed, and thus the US remains vulnerable to security threats targeting its leaders.
The process of hiring and firing workers is also a long and complicated one. For example, Joseph Clancy, the Secret Service Permanent Chief, indicated that it was difficult for him to take action against two security agents who had been involved in an accident not until he obtained all the facts.
The slow pace of action and excessive consultations have failed to offer substantial and timely solutions in many cases. Due to the long bureaucratic procedures, reporting an incidence as well as acting on it takes a lot of time yet swift decisions are needed to make desired changes.
Workers are not willing to cooperate with their bosses on a bureaucratic structure. In addition, service providers are not willing to work with a highly bureaucratized system due to delays and sometimes failures.
Bureaucratic values hinder the possibility of innovation because workers are supposed to operate within set guidelines. Even when they have easier options to tackle a situation, they are compelled to stick to usual procedures. This aspect leads to fatigue and stress.
This scenario has been reflected amongst the agents in the Secret Service who often get involved in alcohol consumption as a way of relieving job-related stress.
For almost a decade, the DHS has suffered a weakened position in decision-making and it is evident that it will continue to face bureaucratic challenges if necessary reforms are not put in place.
Basing on Hummel’s view, the US has to stop revitalizing a 19th-Century era institution and adopt a radicalized model. This change is not only needed in the Security agencies, but virtually in every institution because most have lost confidence and trust in the American society.
As Coleman notes, fresh perspectives and approaches should be adopted to ensure that workers feel free to change situations when necessary to increase efficacy and save time wasted through excessive consultations.
The Secret Service should rethink its organizational culture, consider unifying its force in a way that embraces cross training, and eradicate rigidity in the security force.
With the current trend in the security matters, it is necessary to have a flexible security force that has the capacity to respond to different challenges without having to go through complex bureaucratic procedures to initiate a simple response. Inclusive leadership will increase the morale among agents and security officials.