Leadership styles used by senior medical leaders

Author:

Chapman Ann LN,Johnson David,Kilner Karen

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this study was to determine the predominant leadership styles used by medical leaders and factors influencing leadership style use. Clinician leadership is important in healthcare delivery and service development. The use of different leadership styles in different contexts can influence individual and organisational effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach – A mixed methods approach was used, combining a questionnaire distributed electronically to 224 medical leaders in acute hospital trusts with in-depth “critical incident” interviews with six medical leaders. Questionnaire responses were analysed quantitatively to determine, first, the overall frequency of use of six predefined leadership styles and, second, individual leadership style based on a consultative/decision-making paradigm. Interviews were analysed thematically using both a confirmatory approach with predefined leadership styles as themes, and also an inductive grounded theory approach exploring influencing factors. Findings – Leaders used a range of styles, the predominant styles being democratic, affiliative and authoritative. Although leaders varied in their decision-making authority and consultative tendency, virtually all leaders showed evidence of active leadership. Organisational culture, context, individual propensity and “style history” emerged during the inductive analysis as important factors in determining use of leadership styles by medical leaders. Practical implications – The outcomes of this evaluation are useful for leadership development at the level of the individual, organisation and wider National Health Service (NHS). Originality/value – This study adds to the very limited evidence base on patterns of leadership style use in medical leadership and reports a novel conceptual framework of factors influencing leadership style use by medical leaders.

Publisher

Emerald

Reference39 articles.

1. Adair, J. (1973), Action-Centred Leadership , McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

2. Arksey, H. and Knight, P.T. (1999), Interviewing for Social Scientists , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

3. Belbin, R.M. (1981), Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail , Heinemann, Oxford.

4. Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

5. Chell, E. (2004), “Critical incident technique”, in Cassell, , C. , Symon, and G. (Eds), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organisational Research , Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Cited by 21 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

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3