Search results

In this chapter, we examine the role of M&A (mergers and acquisitions) leadership by conducting a review of recent empirical studies on M&A leadership. Our aim is to provide an overview of the current state of knowledge concerning M&A leadership. More specifically, we examine how M&A leadership has been studied (i.e., study methods, data sources), where M&A leadership has been studied (i.e., geographic distribution, industries, level of analysis), which leadership M&A outcomes and M&A leadership perspectives have been examined, and finally, how M&A leadership influences post-M&A outcomes. This allows us to identify main areas of interest and provide suggestions for further research.

To examine the evolution of health care integration strategies and associated conceptualization and practice through a review and synthesis of over 25 years of international academic research and literature.

A search of the health sciences literature was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. A total of 114 articles were identified for inclusion and thematically analyzed using a strategy content model for systems-level integration.

Six major, inter-related shifts in integration strategies were identified: (1) from a focus on horizontal integration to an emphasis on vertical integration; (2) from acute care and institution-centered models of integration to a broader focus on community-based health and social services; (3) from economic arguments for integration to an emphasis on improving quality of care and creating value; (4) from evaluations of integration using an organizational perspective to an emerging interest in patient-centered measures; (5) from a focus on modifying organizational and environmental structures to an emphasis on changing ways of working and influencing underlying cultural attitudes and norms; and (6) from integration for all patients within defined regions to a strategic focus on integrating care for specific populations. We propose that underlying many of these shifts is a growing recognition of the value of understanding health care delivery and integration as processes situated in Complex-Adaptive Systems (CAS).

This review builds a descriptive framework against which to assess, compare, and track integration strategies over time.

Originally developed by the Japanese firm Toyota in the 1950s, the core innovation of lean production is to reorient all organizational activity around continuous improvement and the elimination of waste. We use the case of lean production in two healthcare organizations to explore the process of translating management models into new environments (Czarniawska & Sevón, 1996; Mohr, 1998). We draw on insights from organizational sociology and social movement theory to understand the strategies of actors as they attempt to overcome opposition to model transfer (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009; Friedland & Alford, 1991; Snow, Rochford, Worden, & Benford, 1986). We examine two attempts to export lean production to healthcare organizations: Riverside Hospital, a research and teaching institution, and Lakeview Associations, a managed health provider. We use these cases to illustrate two ways that management models can get lost in the process of institutional translation: model attenuation, and model decoupling.

Clinical front-line staff are best positioned within the organizations to identify patient safety problems and craft solutions. However, in traditional models, safety committees are led by senior executives who are not clinically responsible for patients. This top-down approach can result in missed opportunities to address patient-centered challenges and better manage the health of the defined populations served by these organizations.

To foster teamwork, enhance empowerment, and improve the patient care environment, Operations Councils led by trained front-line staff were deployed in 15 clinical areas at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (OSUWMC) as a performance improvement tool.

Standardized training of Council facilitators was designed and implemented to guide the performance improvement process. Balanced scorecards were developed in each Council based on the risks and concerns of that particular clinical area. After initial implementation of the Operations Councils, patient safety events declined and team engagement improved by over 34% across the medical center; the highest changes were seen in areas where Operations Councils had been deployed. Additionally, outcome metrics including area-specific and system-wide mortality and readmissions improved after implementation.

We suggest that this type of approach may be an appropriate strategy to consider in other health care organizations as such institutions are challenged to better manage the health of their defined patient populations.

Can we speed the testing, implementation and spread of management innovations in a systematic way to also contribute to scientific knowledge? Researchers and implementers have developed an approach to test and revise a local version of an innovation during its implementation. The chapter starts with a case example of an application of this combination of implementation and quality improvement sciences and practices (improve-mentation). It then summarizes four examples of this approach so as to help understand what improve-mentation is and how it is different from traditional quality improvement and traditional implementation of evidence-based practices. It considers gaps in knowledge that are hindering both more use of improve-mentation to generate scientific knowledge about spread and implementation, as well as more use of improve-mentation by health care service organizations and researchers. It closes by proposing fruitful research and development that can address these knowledge gaps to speed the implementation, sustainment and spread of care and management innovations.

Networked forms of organizing in health care are increasingly viewed as an effective means of addressing “wicked”, multifaceted health and societal challenges. This is because networks attempt to address these challenges via collaborative approaches in which diverse stakeholders together define the problem(s) and implement solutions. Consequently, there has been a sharp increase in the number and types of networks used in health care. Despite this growth, our understanding of how these networks are governed has not kept pace. The purpose of this chapter is to chart a research agenda for scholars who are interested in studying health care network governance (i.e., the systems of rules and decision-making within networks), which is of particular importance in deliberate networks between organizations. We do so based on our knowledge of the literature and interviews with subject matter experts, both of which are used to identify core network governance concepts that represent gaps in our current knowledge. Our analysis identified various conceptualizations of networks and of their governance, as well as four primary knowledge gaps: “bread and butter” studies of network governance in health care, the role of single organizations in managing health care networks, governance through the life-cycle stages of health care networks, and governing across the multiple levels of health care networks. We first seek to provide some conceptual clarity around networks and network governance. Subsequently, we describe some of the challenges that researchers may confront while addressing the associated knowledge gaps and potential ways to overcome these challenges.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) views Health Information Technology (HIT) as an essential organizational prerequisite for the delivery of safe, reliable, and cost-effective health services. However, HIT presents the proverbial double-edged sword in generating solutions to improve system performance while facilitating the genesis of novel iatrogenic problems. Incongruent organizational processes give rise to technological iatrogenesis or the unintended consequences to system integrity and the resulting organizational outcomes potentiated by incongruent organizational–technological interfaces. HIT is a disruptive innovation for health services organizations but remains an overlooked organizational development (OD) concern.

Recognizing the technology–organizational misalignments that result from HIT adoption is important for leaders seeking to eliminate sources of system instability. The Health Information Technology Iatrogenesis Model (HITIM) provides leaders with a conceptual framework from which to consider HIT as an instrument for organizational development. Complexity and Diffusion of Innovation theories support the framework that suggests each HIT adoption functions as a technological change agent. As such, leaders need to provide operational oversight to managers undertaking system change via HIT implementation. Traditional risk management tools, such as Failure Mode Effect Analysis and Root Cause Analysis, provide proactive pre- and post-implementation appraisals to verify system stability and to enhance system reliability. Reconsidering the use of these tools within the context of a new framework offers leaders guidance when adopting HIT to achieve performance improvement and better outcomes.

Purpose – This paper focuses on efficiency as a central theme of the Italian health care reforms, combining macrolevel policies with microlevel (i.e., operating room) perceptions of the concept.

Design/Methodology/Approach – According to the phenomenographic approach, this analysis investigates how the components of a surgical team (22 semistructured interviews) experience efficiency in their daily workflows.

Findings – The main findings show that the concept of efficiency is multidimensional. According to participants’ perspective, several categories of efficiency collected in an outcome space emphasize an holistic view of efficiency driving health policies and strategies.

Social implications – The suggestion of further relationships between perspectives and other constructs (i.e., quality, safety, patient focus, process) at micro and macro level could enhance the impact of health reforms.

Originality/Value – A qualitative approach conducted at microlevel help to recognize the phenomenon (of efficiency), engaging the individual conception that practitioners have of the health efficiency.

Family businesses dominate the economic landscape and contribute to the market for corporate control across the globe, either as acquiring companies or as target. However, there is still limited research investigating acquisitions by or of family firms. The authors begin to remedy this gap by providing a narrative review of extant research. Findings indicate that acquisitions in family firms are primarily regarded as a tool to solve succession problems, and not as a strategic tool to achieve growth. A greater dialog between acquisition and family business scholars can be an important means to improve theory and practice of acquisitions involving family businesses across the globe.