Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore involving doctors in shared leadership. It examines the policies that have led to the focus on shared leadership and the implications for practice.

This is a conceptual paper, examining policy developments and key literature to understand the move towards shared leadership. It focuses on UK NHS, and in particular doctors, although the concepts will be relevant to other disciplines in healthcare, and healthcare systems in other countries.

This paper suggests that the shared-leadership approach for doctors has potential given the nature of clinical practice, the inherently collaborative nature of healthcare and the demands of new healthcare organisations. Health policy reform, generally, will mean that all doctors need to be engaged with leadership, albeit, perhaps, at different levels, and with different degrees of formality. Leadership will remain an important precondition for the success of the reforms. This is likely to be the case for other countries involved in healthcare reform.

To highlight the benefits and barriers to shared leadership for doctors.

Offers an alternative to traditional approaches to leadership.

It has been the custom for many years to preserve foodstuffs by drying, smoking, salting and pickling, and by the addition of sugar. The more modern methods include pasteurisation, sterilisation by heat or other means, refrigeration and the addition of chemical substances having an antiseptic action to a greater or less degree.

Cryptocurrencies are notoriously difficult to value from a fundamental perspective. This valuation challenge is rooted in various debated issues in academia and the investments industry. For example, do cryptocurrencies and other cryptoassets have intrinsic value in the conventional sense? Can one appropriately regard cryptocurrencies as digital fiat currencies? What distinguishes cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and ether from precious metals like gold from a financial perspective? How do cryptocurrencies compare to other cryptoassets in terms of pricing and valuation? This chapter aims to provide responses to these questions, discuss approaches to cryptoasset valuation, and identify areas for future research.

The question of Britain's entry into the Common Market would appear to have been resolved. For a time it did seem as if the Government was looking before it leapt, but if we can read the signs aright, only the controversy now remains. The implications of the Common Market, both political and economic, are largely unknown to the public and if recent events among French farmers are an indication, are not entirely acceptable to those already in it.

In this paper, we contribute to the understanding of how entrepreneurs can deploy their values to enable joint action of heterogeneous stakeholders. Such an understanding forms a critical endeavor to tackle grand challenges adequately. Building on sensegiving research, we conducted a single-case study of an entrepreneurial initiative that tackles gender inequality in Lebanon which has been successful in mobilizing heterogeneous stakeholders who ordinarily would not collaborate with each other. We find that the values of the founders were pivotal for the initiative’s success as those values activated latent values of stakeholders through processes of contextualization and enactment. We subsume these processes under the label value-driven sensegiving. As a result of value-driven sensegiving, heterogeneous stakeholders could make sense of the founders’ aspirational vision and the role they could play in it, which paved ways for tackling grand challenges collaboratively. Our study provides insights into the centrality of values for mobilizing heterogeneous stakeholders across boundaries. Therefore, it contributes to the body of work on sensegiving, societal grand challenges, and new forms of organizing.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relevance of shared leadership to multi-disciplinary cancer care. It examines the policy background and applies concepts from shared leadership to this context. It includes discussion of the implications and recommendations.

This is a conceptual paper examining policy documents and secondary literature on the topic. While it focuses on the UK National Health Services, it is also relevant to other countries given they follow a broadly similar path with regard to multi-disciplinary working.

The paper suggests that shared leadership is a possible way forward for multi-disciplinary cancer care, particularly as policy developments are supportive of this. It shows that a shared perspective is likely to be beneficial to the further development of multi-disciplinary working.

Adopting shared leadership needs to be explored further using appropriate empirical research.

The paper offers comments on the implications of introducing shared leadership and makes recommendations including being aware of the barriers to its implementation.

The paper offers an alternative view on leadership in the health-care context.

Policy leadership infiltrates the lives of citizens everywhere. Though this type of leadership is implicit and ubiquitous, a theoretically-based model specifically intended for policy leaders is not readily available in academic literature. This article serves to address this gap by proposing a conceptual model of the policy leadership framework. The model expounds upon previous literature and identifies 16 areas vital to the policy process. Implications of the model relate to equipping leadership educators in the classroom and in the community with enhanced policy leadership research and curriculum.

The Central Training Council set down in 1968 a procedure agreed between the Department of Employment and industrial training boards for setting up joint committees of boards to coordinate the preparation of training recommendations for jobs which are found in more than one industry. Such a joint board committee was established for Commercial and Administrative Training under the general auspices of the Engineering Industry Training Board. The Chairman of the Committee is Mr F Metcalfe. Membership of the Committee includes representatives from other industrial training boards, employers, a university and colleges, trade unions, the Department of Employment, and the Department of Education and Science and the Scottish Education Department. The Joint Board Committee set up five sub‐committees to consider the training required in identified functional areas, each serviced by one of the boards represented on the parent body. The report of the Personnel Management/Training sub‐committee which was serviced by the Foundry Industry Training Committee and chaired by Mr F Christopher Hayes is the first of the five sub‐committee reports to be published.

This chapter considers how social capital is evolving in the era of globalization today especially under COVID-19 pandemic conditions globally. Definitions of social capital have varied: some broad others narrow. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), for example, currently has a broad research project on social capital. These researchers have defined social capital as comprising four key areas. These areas are:

• Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

• Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

• Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

• Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Personal relationships, referring to the structure of people’s social networks.

Depth and breadth of social network support available to each person in their networks.

Civic engagement activities such as volunteering and community action.

Beliefs, attitudes, and action frames of reference such as trust and cooperative norms, of reciprocity.

Thus, there are tacit as well as explicit aspects of social capital though some of these may seldom if ever be articulated and delineated for others.

As Claridge (2020) indicates, there are distinct, but dynamically interrelated, levels of social capital. These levels range between the micro- or individual level. That is personal “habitus” – which Bourdieu (1977) describes as a person’s “taken-for-granted” – ways of being, thinking, and reacting to events and to other people. Then, the next level above the individual is the meso-level, which is “how things are done here amongst us,” that is, the level of a group’s social capital (such as a team, or an organizational or local community level). Lastly, and wider still, the top level is the macro- or cultural-societal structural level of the nation.

The social capital systems in any location encompasses sets of acceptable or culturally legitimated behavioral norms and rules of engagement between community members which include types of greetings, forms of cooperation, communications, and signaling between diverse members. Thus, social capital may be present in the tacit, or unspoken/taken-for-granted assumptions as much as in explicit or formalized codes of behavior. The forms of social interactions at each of the levels may have norms for specific types communication and address in particular sets of circumstances such as social gatherings at home or in public or when attending communal gatherings or ceremonial occasions, or between people of different social status. Social capital generates trust and social cohesion and some level of cultural and attitudinal consensus and interest, which in turn delivers a stable environment for the local community or larger society, business, or the economy.

• (1)

  Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

• (2)

  There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

• (3)

  Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

Social capital is the development of relationships that help contribute to a more efficient production of goods and services as there is embedded trust, embodied in practice, that is, in behaviors regarded as trustworthy and socially helpful.

There are three types of social capital at each level of interaction – bonding, bridging, and linking. Bridging and linking are similar though they operate in different directions socially. Bonding social capital describes the connections between people in similar social levels or groups of people who share the same characteristic norms and beliefs, whereas linking social capital facilitates connects between different groups.

Social capital can therefore make or break businesses, especially small businesses or start-ups as those with the right kind and amount of social capital, such as good connections and contacts in the trade or profession, can usually thrive as they are able to get work done more quickly, effectively, and efficiently. Conversely, a lack of social capital denoting some distrust between groups can undermine social stability.

The meso- or macro-levels of bridging type social capital ensures acceptance of established social roles locally and linking forms of social capital boost levels of acceptance of other roles such as those of leaders and followers.

All three forms of social capital and the three levels are not mutually exclusive but instead are mutually inclusive and interrelated. That is, they co-evolve, each impacting the other while dynamically interacting with the social capital anchored as it is emerging from the complex and interwoven fields of tacit and explicit norms of social interaction underpinning each of the levels of interaction over time.