Editorial

Citation

Bowerman, J. (2007), "Editorial", Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 20 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhs.2007.21120baa.001

Editorial

Welcome to Issue 2 of the newly revised and revamped Leadership in Health Services. Judging from the number of submissions we have received for this issue, it feels as though momentum is building and that we are beginning to be noticed. Our goal now is to maintain and build the momentum so that we can become one of the leading journals in the health field. We believe this goal to be eminently manageable. Even before when we were just a small sub section of the International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Emerald statistics derived from its unique data base demonstrated that we still managed to achieve over 20,000 downloads in 2006, mostly from the UK (28.9 per cent), North American (24 per cent), and Australasia (14.9 per cent). To build on this record therefore is more than just a pipe dream.

This issue contains five articles which more than cover the scope of the journal. These include:

1. 1.

   Dr Victor Maddalena’s eminently practical yet supremely important piece on ethical decision written to assist executives working in the healthcare setting. Dr Maddalena presents a nine step decision-making algorithm which acts as a guide for identifying and resolving complex ethical problems. In my experience, all too often we expect our senior executives to make right and ethical decisions in the face of unbelievable organizational and system complexity, yet fail to really understand what the right decision is. Hindsight is our usual lens for judgement. Dr Maddalena’s algorithm with its related questions not only helps the person making the decision, but also helps others to understand how the decision was made. Understanding brings about learning and wisdom – two vital qualities in the world of health service field today.

2. 2.

   Dr Debra Harker and Professor Andrew Harker’s research paper deals with the controversial practice of direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines on the part of pharmaceutical companies competing to be leaders in research and development. As a North American resident, I see these advertisements on television all the time, and have often wondered about their impact on consumer behaviour. Specifically, the purpose of Harker and Harker’s paper is to give healthcare practitioners insight into how consumers process the messages, as well as guidance on how they can assist with this processing. In an age when more and more individuals are taking some degree of responsibility for their own health conditions, this becomes an increasingly timely topic, and is worthy of much more exploration.

3. 3.

   Block and Manning’s paper on a leadership development program for mid level managers describes an eight day program for front-line leaders and their supervisors involving applied change projects (of the action learning kind though she does not use this term), classroom instruction, and practical skill development. Their findings suggest that these kinds of programs need to be supported throughout organizations; that they are certainly popular with participants and are viewed as having significant impact on their work performance. They make the point, though, that participants’ supervisors do not necessarily always support the view of the program’s success. Their observations reminded me of Argyris’s point about espoused theory versus theory in use. We too often acknowledge the need for leadership-especially at the front line, but our fears and defensive routines all too often become a reason for not supporting such programs as fully as we should.

4. 4.

   In somewhat similar vein to Block and Manning, Miller et al. in their paper describe the methods and impacts of the USA-based National Public Health Leadership Institute (PHLI), a yearlong leadership development program for senior public health leaders. They describe how a variety of learning methods in combination with each other have led to significantly improved performance and outcomes on the part of the Public Health Executives attending the Institute. What makes this particular paper of interest is the fact that all the learning methods including action learning, coaching, 360 degree feedback, seminars and teambuilding worked in synergy to create very positive results especially around collaboration and networking- key knowledge skills in an age when public health pandemics threaten to overwhelm us. Programs that help to develop key leadership and knowledge sharing skills need our ongoing support and deserve to be replicated. My conclusion from the work of Miller and Umble is that such learning programs and their ongoing evaluations are no longer a luxury; they are a necessity.

5. 5.

   Guo and Company have written a conceptual paper that reviews the literature on managerial roles, management functions, and skills and competencies of directors of social work. Arguing that there is little literature that addresses the management functions in social work, the paper addresses the multiple challenges faced by Social Work Managers as they become members of interdisciplinary teams with other health care professionals within a case management framework, in the ongoing and somewhat volatile change environment of today’s hospital. Only by building new competencies in new and different areas, can Social Worker Managers continue their necessary involvement in the ongoing provision of patient care.

A reading of these papers leads us to the inevitable conclusion that leadership in the vast field of health services is a complex phenomenon spanning the globe. Collaborative cross cultural learning requires that we use journals such as this one to share our ideas and our practices with each other. As much as anything the function of this journal Leadership in Health Services is to create such a context. This journal allows us to explore which practices are best, how to pool our knowledge, and thus create opportunities for mutual learning. Karl Weick (1996, p. 148) reminds us that ignorance and knowledge grow together. ‘The more people learn about a particular domain, the more questions they raise about other areas in the same domain’. There is so much that needs to be shared in this special field, and I urge those of you who read this journal to contribute your own experiences as you learn and grow.

One more thing that perhaps needs to be addressed before the next issue is the question of peer reviews. At this time articles that are contributed for publication are distributed to members of our editorial board for their review or comments. The journal editors also participate in this process. The reviews are then pooled and the comments then sent to the would-be authors for their consideration. So far most of the comments have been well received, and the original authors have taken the time to revise their papers and make significant improvements. In short, the peer review process is working. In addition, author guidelines are provided on the emerald website. We do urge you to check the guidelines before submitting your paper to ensure that the format does meet the journal specifications. But we as an editorial team are committed to our task, and will always work with you if you require particular assistance.

Until next time – may we all continue to develop our individual leadership capabilities toward the ongoing delivery of ever -improving and effective health care services.

Jennifer Bowerman