Distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for accreditation research
Author:
Greenfield David,Braithwaite Jeffrey,Pawsey Marjorie,Johnson Brian,Robinson Maureen
Abstract
PurposeInquiries into healthcare organisations have highlighted organisational or system failure, attributed to poor responses to early warning signs. One response, and challenge, is for professionals and academics to build capacity for quality and safety research to provide evidence for improved systems. However, such collaborations and capacity building do not occur easily as there are many stakeholders. Leadership is necessary to unite differences into a common goal. The lessons learned and principles arising from the experience of providing distributed leadership to mobilise capacity for quality and safety research when researching health care accreditation in Australia are presented.Design/methodology/approachA case study structured by temporal bracketing that presents a narrative account of multi‐stakeholder perspectives. Data are collected using in‐depth informal interviews with key informants and ethno‐document analysis.FindingsDistributed leadership enabled a collaborative research partnership to be realised. The leadership harnessed the relative strengths of partners and accounted for, and balanced, the interests of stakeholder participants involved. Across three phases, leadership and the research partnership was enacted: identifying partnerships, bottom‐up engagement and enacting the research collaboration.Practical implicationsTwo principles to maximise opportunities to mobilise capacity for quality and safety research have been identified. First, successful collaborations, particularly multi‐faceted inter‐related partnerships, require distributed leadership. Second, the leadership‐stakeholder enactment can promote reciprocity so that the collaboration becomes mutually reinforcing and beneficial to partners.Originality/valueThe paper addresses the need to understand the practice and challenges of distributed leadership and how to replicate positive practices to implement patient safety research.
Subject
Health Policy,Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)
Reference45 articles.
1. Bartunek, J. (1984), “Changing interpretive schemes and organisational restructuring: the example of a religious order”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 29, pp. 355‐72. 2. Bennett, N., Harvey, J., Wise, C. and Woods, P. (2003), Desk Study Review of Distributed Leadership, NCSL/CEPAM, Nottingham. 3. Bickmore, K. (2001), “Student conflict resolution, power “sharing” in schools, and citizenship education”, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 137‐62. 4. Braithwaite, J., Westbrook, M., Travaglia, J., Iedema, R., Mallock, N., Long, D., Nugus, P., Forsyth, R., Jorm, C. and Pawsey, M. (2007), “Are health systems changing in support of patient safety? A multi‐methods evaluation of education, attitudes and practice”, International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 585‐601. 5. Braithwaite, J., Westbrook, J., Pawsey, M., Greenfield, D., Naylor, J., Iedema, R., Runciman, B., Redman, S., Jorm, C., Robinson, M., Nathan, S. and Gibberd, R. (2006), “A prospective, multi‐method, multi‐disciplinary, multi‐level, collaborative, social‐organisational design for researching health sector accreditation [LP0560737]”, BMC Health Services Research, Vol. 6, p. 113.
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|