3.8 Article

Creating allegiance: leading transformational change within the NHS

期刊

BMJ LEADER
卷 2, 期 3, 页码 110-114

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/leader-2018-000088

关键词

transformational change; leadership; health system; capability; care redesign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Within the UK National Health Service (NHS) the move to Sustainable Transformation Plans/Partnerships and Integrated Care Systems reflect the increasing need and expectation for transformational change at a system level across both health and social care boundaries. Transformational change is complex, emergent and dynamic requiring new, non-traditional forms of leadership which are highly relational and persuasive. Aim of the study The current study aimed to explore a small number of NHS senior leaders' experiences of undertaking transformational change within their localities over a period of a year following participation in a national transformational change programme designed to enhance personal capabilities. Method Four pairs of leaders working on different change programmes took part in the study and were interviewed at three time points about their approach to their change work. The data were analysed qualitatively using template analysis. Results A core theme of Creating Allegiance to an Emergent Future World was developed. The senior leaders created allegiance to the transformational change through a process of Connecting on three levels: relational, with purpose and vision and through practice. Allegiance creation was attempted even if the transformational change work at the year-end was deemed successful or not. Conclusions The study highlights the types of leadership behaviours employed by the participants reflecting the complexity and social construction of their transformational work. The findings provide further evidence to the existing system leadership literature as well as emphasising the importance of creating stakeholder, multilevel buy-in to healthcare transformation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据