Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify and explore leadership capability for driving value co-creation in health-care service innovation. The leadership theories developed for leading within organization boundaries can no longer apply when customers and multiple participants are collaborating for innovative services. This study uses the dynamic capability theory to identify leadership capability that supports value co-creation in health-care service innovation.

Two case studies of Australian mental health organizations are used to identify co-creational leadership capability. These organizations have successfully embedded co-creational leadership capability in organizational systems and structure as the dynamic capability.

The study is among the first one to identify the leadership capability from a service-dominant logic perspective. Drawing from dynamic capability theory, six characteristics of co-creational leadership capability are identified, namely, creating a combined world view, creating a shared vision, facilitating an environment of trust, facilitating knowledge creation and knowledge sharing, empowering choice and facilitating collaboration.

This research has extended the leadership and the value co-creation literature by identifying co-creational leadership capability to drive value co-creation agenda for improving organizational results and performance.

This paper aims to examine the benefits and challenges of enacting cross‐sector alliances as a strategy to meet the health leadership capacity and capability requirements to effect improvements in health service delivery.

The findings originate from two case studies of cross‐sector alliances in Canada.

Value generated by strategic alliances in health with organisations from public, private and civil sectors is accrued at the inter‐organisational, organisational, group and individual level. Obstacles related to mindsets, operations and governance guiding the partnerships were identified which further an understanding of the advantages and constraints for using cross‐sector alliances as a strategy for large‐scale health leadership development.

Future research could investigate whether other factors influence the overall success of using an alliance strategy which may lead to a more comprehensive understanding of large‐scale health leadership initiatives. Given the universal health care context of this study, the results should be examined for their generalisability to other contexts.

The results urge decision‐makers to develop the mental models, behaviours and processes that support the use of cross‐sector alliances to achieve practical benefits gained through large‐systems health leadership development that may otherwise be unattainable.

This paper responds to the needs of executives by investigating alliances among health, education, business and government as a strategic driver for building the health leadership capacity and capability needed for implementing health reform.

This article aims to provide an overview of what is occurring within two large District Health Boards in New Zealand: Counties Manukau DHB, ranking number three in relative population size, and Canterbury DHB, number two. The conclusions provide a comparison of these approaches and draw on some of the new developments which are being driven by and through these District Health Boards.

Canterbury DHB have embraced a capability/competency framework while Counties Manukau DHB have chosen an alternative approach, enacting “leadership as a practice approach”. CMDHB have developed a range of development intervention across management and leadership levels while CDHB have chosen a path of HR practices aligned to a capability framework.

The approaches taken by Counties Manukau DHB and Canterbury DHB, while different, are driven by many of the same elements both internally and externally, indeed they might even be considered complementary. A focus on quality and patient safety, the changing dynamics of clinicians and managers, the integration of primary and secondary care and the increasing move to multi‐disciplinary teams who focus on care systems in an environment of increased demand alongside proportionally decreasing resources feature in both and require an adaptation of leadership in a health context.

The approaches taken by the two DHBs are unique to their organisations and the sector, yet provide exemplars of practice for other large health providers. The outcomes will reflect their differences in approach and the specific workforce challenges each faces.

The purpose of this paper was to determine the complementarity between the Canadian Medical Education Directions for Specialists (CanMEDS) physician competency and LEADS leadership capability frameworks from three perspectives: epistemological, philosophical and pragmatic. Based on those findings, the authors propose how the frameworks collectively layout pathways of lifelong learning for physician leadership.

Using a qualitative approach combining critical discourse analysis with a modified Delphi, the authors examined “How complementary the CanMEDS and LEADS frameworks are in guiding physician leadership development and practice” with the following sub-questions: What are the similarities and differences between CanMEDS and LEADS from: An epistemological and philosophical perspective? The perspective of guiding physician leadership training and practice? How can CanMEDS and LEADS guide physician leadership development from medical school to retirement?

Similarities and differences exist between the two frameworks from philosophical and epistemological perspectives with significant complementarity. Both frameworks are founded on a caring ethos and value physician leadership – CanMEDS (for physicians) and LEADS (physicians as one of many professions) define leadership similarly. The frameworks share beliefs in the function of leadership, embrace a belief in distributed leadership, and although having some philosophical differences, have a shared purpose (preparing for changing health systems). Practically, the frameworks are mutually supportive, addressing leadership action in different contexts and where there is overlap, complement one another in intent and purpose.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to map the CanMEDS (physician competency) and LEADS (leadership capabilities) frameworks. By determining the complementarity between the two, synergies can be used to influence physician leadership capacity needed for today and the future.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a case study demonstrating that LEADS in a Caring Environment Capabilities Framework in Canada can assist physicians to be partners in leading health reform.

A descriptive case-based approach was followed, relying on existing documents, research papers and peer-reviewed articles, to substantiate the effect of LEADS on physician leadership in Canada.

The Canadian LEADS framework enables physicians to lead by providing them with access to best practices of leadership, acting as an antidote to fragmented leadership practice, setting standards for development and accountability and providing opportunities for efficient and effective system-wide leadership development and change.

A formal systematic review of the literature was not conducted. Findings can only be generalized to other cases if the reader sees contextual similarities between the present study context and the other case’s context.

This case demonstrates that national leadership frameworks have a role in facilitating physician leadership. Other national jurisdictions may wish to explore the Canadian case to determine how to use a common leadership language to engage physicians in health reform.

Leadership is a key component of health reform. A common language and set of standards (LEADS) that can engage physicians will benefit patients and citizens in Canada.

This national case study shows how a nationally endorsed leadership framework such as LEADS can facilitate better physician leadership for health reform.

The purpose of this paper is to call for strong medical co-leadership in transforming the Australian health system. The paper discusses how Health LEADS Australia, the Australian health leadership framework, offers an opportunity to engage medical clinicians and doctors in the leadership of health services.

The paper first discusses the nature of medical leadership and its associated challenges. The paper argues that medical leaders have a key role in the design, implementation and evaluation of healthcare reforms, and in translating these reforms for their colleagues. Second, this paper describes the origins and nature of Health LEADS Australia. Third, this paper discusses the importance of the goal of Health LEADS Australia and suggests the evidence-base underpinning the five foci in shaping medical leadership education and professional development. This paper concludes with suggestions on how Health LEADS Australia might be evaluated.

For the well-being of the Australian health system, doctors need to play an important role in the kind of leadership that makes measurable differences in the retention of clinical professions; improves organisational cultures; enhances the engagement of consumers and their careers; is associated with better patient and public health outcomes; effectively addresses health inequalities; balances cost effectiveness with improved quality and safety; and is sustainable.

This is the first article addressing Health LEADS Australia and medical leadership. Australia is actively engaging in a national approach to health leadership. Discussions about the mechanisms and intentions of this are valuable in both national and global health leadership discourses.

The importance of management capacity in the health sector has been increasingly recognized. The World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) has claimed that limited “management capacity” in low-income countries is one of the main obstacles toward achieving health-related goals. The aim of this study is to answer the research question: “What are the elements of management and leadership capacity of senior managers from the perspective of senior managers.”

Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted with 20 senior health managers. Sampling method was purposive. Data were collected using a researcher-made interview guide. The transcribed text was analyzed using framework analysis.

Five main themes emerged from the analysis are: (1) competencies required for managers; (2) selection and appointment of managers; (3) establishment of managers' database; (4) deployment of functional support system; and (5) environmental sensitivity. Each of these themes contains sub-themes.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the interviews were conducted virtually. This may have had an impact on obtaining wealthy data because in a face-to-face interview, it is possible to question and answer, get additional explanations and understand the interviewee's mentality.

Extracting elements of management and leadership capacity helps managers to assess management capacity and leadership comprehensively and effectively. In addition, effective and useful operations can be done to strengthen the management and leadership capacity.

This is the first study that has identified the main elements of management and leadership capacity from the perspective of senior health managers in Iran. This article provides the components of the health system management and leadership capacity that can be used at top management level.

Wellbeing at work inspires global interest (WHO, 1997, 2010) which shapes international wellbeing whilst ensuring national wellbeing initiatives are devolved. This study is set in Wales, UK; the findings, however, are of interest to the global community as they present ways in which health promotion practices that are essentially salutogenic in nature (Antonovsky, 1987; Mittlemark and Bauer, 2017), may be operationalised through leadership development. The study is contextualised during a time of perceived public service overwhelm, and the purpose of this paper is to explore how a salutogenic model (Gray, 2017) captures a leadership narrative shaped by workplace stress, informing what the authors know about the resilience and wellbeing of leaders.

The salutogenic model used in this exploratory study is based on the theories of Antonovsky (1979, 1987), and the conceptual work of De la Vega (2009). Participants were invited to take part in qualitative conversations, designed to explore leadership from a sense of coherence (SoC) perspective, and identify resilience and wellbeing descriptors across sectors. The data represented the lived experience of leader’s resilience and wellbeing within their work role. A purposeful sample of leaders (N=356) were invited to take part in the project, others were suggested as part of a snowball sampling approach (N=36). The overall participant numbers were N=68.

Using the SoC framework to explore resilience and wellbeing in terms of leadership, enabled participants to make sense of a stressful workplace environment, and share experiential knowledge that contributes to leadership development. The narrative that emerges is one in which leaders are feeling overwhelmed, and the broader influences of BREXIT, workforce and service user demographics, and organisational change are challenges to sustaining resilience. Participants suggest that leaders need to develop self-knowledge/awareness first, and role model the “resilient and well leader” to others.

The limitations of this study relate to the fact that given the potential for participation was nearer 400 leaders, the N=68 participants could not be deemed large enough to generalise the findings. However, this was a scoping study exercise, designed to explore resilience and wellbeing through SoC conversations and to surface descriptors that would add to what the authors know about contemporary leadership. The study could be improved in the future by the collection of more descriptors, and where practical segmentation of descriptors may provide further insight in terms of comparison between professions/sectors.

The authors know that leadership is linked to positive and negative outcomes for employees; it is, therefore, prudent to consider how the authors can support both current and future leaders, to incorporate their own and others’ resilience and wellbeing into their leadership repertoire. This may well be best facilitated through health leadership which is known to have a positive association in determining the psychological climate of the workplace. Leadership authenticity means leaders should be able to ask for help, if leaders are struggling with that, then the authors need to examine leadership from a cultural perspective. In practical terms, the generalised resistance resources (GRRs) put forward by the participants may also form local as well as national wellbeing action plans for the future.

Leadership is socially constructed within the organisational context, and the resilience and wellbeing of leaders is affected by the organisational health determinants in the working environment. If the authors are to consider how leaders are to develop an SoC for themselves and others, the authors need to attend to how the leader learns in the context. This is because their SoC is also shaped by the challenges they experience, and socio-constructed learning becomes neurologically embedded, so that ways of thinking, feeling and behaving are reinforced and exhibited over and over again.

This exploratory study demonstrates the efficacy of the salutogenic model to stimulate dialogue about a potentially sensitive subject. Many of the answers rest with the leaders themselves. The authors held conversations with leaders from the public services in Wales, identified “best self” and “peripheral” variables that leaders manifest across the various organisations they lead, and leaders produced a range of GRRs to support resilience and wellbeing across sectors in the future. There is a growing recognition that in terms of health leadership capability, there will be a premium on knowledge capital that pertains to improving the resilience and wellbeing of employees.

The purpose of this paper is to articulate the shifts in the theoretical conceptualization of, and the practice of leadership in health care in Canada that are happening as a response to challenges of system transformation; and the implications of those shifts for individual leaders, for health services delivery, for research into health system leadership, and for leadership development approaches in university and health agencies.

The paper begins with an analysis of the historical, contemporary, and futuristic context that shapes the conceptualization and practice of leadership now and into the future. The context consists of two parts. First, the need for leadership in health systems in Canada will be established. Second, a conceptual and practical exploration of leadership in health care, beginning with a review of the literature and moving on to exploration of two key projects pertaining to health leadership and health leadership development in Canada, commissioned by senior leaders in health care, will be analyzed for their contribution to defining leadership.

The findings outline key shifts in leadership that must take place to respond to changes in the national health environment and be pro‐active in shaping it. A typology of those shifts in order to show the constituent elements framing the evolution of leadership is outlined.

Further research on different models and approaches to leadership being promulgated in Canada, their impact on health system capacity building for change, and on new models of education for leaders, is needed.

As the speed of change in health service delivery grows, the form of leadership required to steward it in a productive fashion changes. As a lag grows between “old” models of leadership and “new” models, leaders themselves experience frustration at their ability to be effective in creating system change. This has implications for our expectations of, and ability to practice leadership; and for our developmental approaches to developing leadership.

The paper helps to explain what kind of leadership is required to truly transform health systems on a national scale. It also contributes to the international dialogue around health systems transformation, capacity building, and improving health service delivery.

Formal structured leadership training is increasingly incorporated as a regular fixture in developed nations to produce competent leaders to ensure the provision of quality patient care. However, most low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rely on one-off external training opportunities for selected individuals as they lack the necessary resources to implement long-term training for a wider pool of potential health care leaders. This case study shares the establishment process of the Talent Grooming Programme for technical health care professionals (TGP), a three-year in-house leadership training programme specially targeted at potential health care leaders in Malaysia.

This case study aims to share a comprehensive overview of the ideation, conceptualisation and implementation of TGP. The authors also outlined its impact from the individual and organisational perspectives, besides highlighting the lessons learned and recommendations for the way forward.

TGP set out to deliver experiential learning focusing on formal training, workplace experiences, practical reflection and mentoring by supervisors and other esteemed leaders to fulfil the five competency domains of leadership, organisational governance, communication and relationship, professional values and personal values. The successes and challenges in TGP programme delivery, post-training assessment, outcome evaluation and programme sustainability were outlined.

The authors’ experience in setting up TGP provided valuable learning points for other leadership development programme providers. As for any development programme, a continuous evaluation is vital to ensure its relevance and sustainability.

Certain aspects of TGP establishment can be referenced and modified to adapt to country-specific settings for others to develop similar leadership programme, especially those in LMICs.