Background
Over recent years interest has grown within the Management and Organisational Studies literature in alternative models of leadership. Such conceptualisations entail an inherent tension between the primacy of a designated individual leadership model versus more plural forms of leadership. On the one hand leadership is examined as a property of individuals and their behaviours; leadership is seen as influence primarily stemming from the formally appointed or designated leader. On the other hand, leadership is examined as a collective phenomenon that is distributed or shared among members of an organisation. The question of who should be accountable for organisational performance and for achieving a particular set of results is central to these different perspectives. Many academics, professionals and practitioners, however, remain sceptical of adopting extreme positions either way, suggesting that both leadership models are important and offer unique challenges and benefits.
The following are examples of some stimulating questions that might help you think about the topic in more depth:
Does each of these forms of leadership have unique benefits or raise particular issues and challenges for health care organisations?
Are both models relevant and appropriate in all situations? For example, how appropriate each model is in times of crises, or when you try to innovate, or when making routine organisational decisions?
Does context matter? E.g. Is the suitability of each model influenced by factors such as the urgency and complexity of specific tasks, the directness and intensity of communication structures in organisations, the specific health system, the service area, the wider societal or national environment, the organisational or national culture?
What impact does the pace and volatility of change in the external environment of health organisations (whether in the private or public sectors) have on the appropriateness of each model?
Is individual leadership more important than collective or the opposite?
What is the evidence in support or against each position?
Aim
Leadership in the real world has context and purpose. For this assignment you need to take into account specific contextual conditions (e.g. diverse service settings, different country settings, different sectors). You should aim to contextualise your study by applying the concepts in one or more settings which you are either familiar with or interested in to work in the future.
The assignment is intended to develop your skills in thinking critically on leadership in the context of health care. It also aims to encourage you to systematically search for and analyse published evidence and reflectively apply leadership theory.
Requirements
The assignment requires that you research the area in-depth using the university electronic resources and other relevant sources (e.g. media coverage).
The submitted written report needs to include:
an introductory description of the topic in a specific health sector context of your choice
a clear description of the context on which you focus your analysis
a reflective summary discussion of the main articles you found on the subject matter. Prioritise quality and a critical in depth analysis of the key ideas and empirical evidence rather than a superficial coverage of many articles
a criticism of the evidence content and key ideas presented in the articles or other key publications used as material to construct your arguments
a balanced and critical review of both leadership models
Observe length requirements (4,000 words, not including tables and references).
