Search results

Patriotism is often described as the “love of country” that individuals display in the acclamation of their national community. Despite the prominence of this sentiment in various societies around the world, organizational research on patriotism is largely absent. This omission is surprising because entrepreneurs, human resource (HR) divisions, and firms frequently embrace both patriotism and patriotic organizational practices. These procedures include (among other interventions) national symbol embracing, HR practices targeted toward military members and first responders, the adulation of patriots and celebration of patriotic events, and patriotic-oriented corporate social responsibility (CSR). Here, the authors argue that research on HR management and organization studies will likely be further enhanced with a deeper understanding of the national obligation that can spur employee productivity and loyalty. In an attempt to jumpstart the collective understanding of this phenomenon, the authors explore the antecedents of patriotic organizational practices, namely, the effects of founder orientation, employee dispersion, and firm strategy. It is suggested that HR practices such as these lead to a patriotic organizational image, which in turn impacts investor, customer, and employee responses. Notably, the effect of a patriotic organizational image on firm-related outcomes is largely contingent on how it fits with the patriotic views of other stakeholders, such as investors, customers, and employees. After outlining this model, the authors then present a thought experiment of how this model may appear in action. The authors then discuss ways the field can move forward in studying patriotism in HR management and organizational contexts by outlining several future directions that span multiple levels (i.e., micro and macro). Taken together, in this chapter, the authors introduce a conversation of something quite prevalent and largely unheeded – the patriotic organization.

In this viewpoint article, the authors recognize the increased focus in health systems on co-design for innovation and change. This article explores the role of leaders and mangers in developing and enhancing a culture of trust in their organizations to enable co-design, with the potential to drive innovation and change in healthcare.

Using social science analyses, the authors argue that current co-design literature has limited focus on interactions between senior leaders and managers, and healthcare staff and service users in supporting co-designed innovation and change. The authors draw on social and health science studies of trust to highlight how the value-based co-design process needs to be supported and enhanced. We outline what co-design innovation and change involve in a health system, conceptualize trust and reflect on its importance within the health system, and finally note the role of senior leaders and managers in supporting trust and responsiveness for co-designed innovation and change.

Healthcare needs leaders and managers to embrace co-design that drives innovation now and in the future through people – leading to better healthcare for society at large. As authors we argue that it is now the time to shift our focus on the role of senior managers and leaders to embed co-design into health and social care structures, through creating and nurturing a culture of trust.

Building public trust in the health system and interpersonal trust within the health system is an ongoing process that relies upon personal behavior of managers and senior leaders, organizational practices within the system, as well as political processes that underpin these practices. By implementing managerial, leadership and individual practices on all levels, senior managers and leaders provide a mechanism to increase both trust and responsiveness for co-design that supports innovation and change in the health system.

A healthcare unit's effectiveness largely depends on how well its interprofessional teams work together. Unfortunately, the strategies used to improve these teams often lack substance. This study analyzed these strategies and found a performance gap.

This study took a unique mixed-method approach, systematically reviewing both qualitative and quantitative studies that identified strategies to enhance interprofessional teams in healthcare units. To gauge the effectiveness of these strategies, the researcher utilized an Importance-Performance Analysis (IPA) in four specialized clinical training centers in Hamadan province, Iran. The analysis of the IPA involved 35 experts from these centers as the statistical population.

Based on a systematic review, there are seven categories: contextual, strategic, communication, organizational, individual, Human Resources Management (HRM), and environmental for promoting interprofessional teams with a total of 36 sub-indicator. Based on the IPA, the HRM aspect shows the most extensive performance gap. The individual and organizational aspects fall under resource wastage, and the environmental aspect is within the indifferent zone. Also, some critical sub-indicators, such as incentives/rewards, roles and responsibilities, financial resources, team-initiated innovation, the culture of respect, partner resources, humility, data availability, set expectations, and team availability, are in the weak areas.

This research has identified critical areas for improvement in promoting teamwork in clinical training centers through a comprehensive gap analysis. It also presents practical policy solutions to address these weak points, providing a clear roadmap for enhancing interprofessional teams in healthcare units.

Improving teamwork in healthcare can be challenging, but it is possible with proper strategies and tools. One of the highlights of the recent study was the combination of systematic review studies with IPA to identify areas for improving interprofessional teamwork in clinical training centers.