Leadership and Management Essay Example for Free

Leadership and Management EssayThe machineation of the billing of the destruction form _or_ system of government at the writers area of practice conf utilise the butt on of transport. This obscure the use of both lead and worry theories which are essential to increased utileness as support by Moiden (2002). The change was a political genius due to the government initiatives to improve end of behavior cover (Department of Health 2008). Antrobus (2003) states that political attractionship aim to deliver improved health business concern outcomes for patients. The render entrust critic anyy analyze both draws and management theories from the top of the organization to the bottom. These theories were utilize to implement this change to enhance prime(a) care in this clinical area. The essay will also critically analyze and evaluate the nurses self management skills in fulfilling their role as clinical managers in spite of appearance interdisciplinary and the cha nging context of the healthcare.Similarly, the essay will discuss the implications upon quality assurance and resource allocation for improvement delivery within the health care sector. These will be related to current government strategies. The effect of government strategies in involving the user and carer or significant opposites in decision making process within current clinical and legal frame hammers (Department of Health 2000b) will also be debated. Similar debate will also be on the nurses involvement in policy making (Antrobus 2003). Further discussion on government strategies will be discussed on the introduction of clinical governance and essence of care. Braine (2006) states that the purpose of implementing change is to improve effectiveness and quality. The whole process of change was based on the introduction of the care of the dying booklet which meant that all healthcare professional documented their notes in the same booklet.The change took place in a large hosp ital to implement a new policy which was politically driven by the government to improve quality of care. Like most hospital organizations, the hospital traditionally uses a bureaucratic management approach (Marquis and Huston 2006) reinforced with authoritarian leading to facilitate efficiency and cost effective care. This is make through planning, coordination, control of services, putting appropriate structures and systems in place and monitoring progress towards per general anatomyance activities (Finkelman 2006 and Faugier and Woolnough 2002). jibe to Marquis and Huston (2006) bureaucracy was introduced after Max Webers work to legalize and make rules and regulations for effect to increase efficiency.The ward manager as a change agent had to design and plan the process of change. Designing change involved scaning the purpose of change and gathering data as back up by Glower (2002). visualizening included identifying driving forces and slipway to reduce restraining force s (Glower 2002). Unlike the top management who used bureaucratic management possibleness, the ward manager applied the human relations management possibility (Marquis and Huston 2006) at ward level. This management speculation is designed to motivate employees to achieve excellence.The human relations possibility was introduced in attempt to correct what was believed to be the shortcoming of bureaucratic theory which failed to include the human aspects (Marquis and Huston 2006). a good deal referred to as motivational theory, Lezon (2002) agrees that this theory views the employee in a different way and helps to understand people wagerer compared to the compulsory management theories of the past. It is based on theory Y of Douglas McGregors (1960) X and Y theories cited in (Lezon 2002). Theory Y assumes that people want to work, are responsible and self motivated, they want to succeed and they understand their position in the organization. Perhaps the appropriateness of this t heory can be linked to the implementation of clinical governance which emphasizes that it is the responsibility of health care professionals to ensure effectiveness, high standards and quality (Braine 2006).This puts health care professionals in a responsible position and motivates them to provide high quality care. This explains why theory Y was used as opposed to theory X which according to Lezon (2002) assumes that people are lazy, unmotivated and withdraw discipline. correspond to the human relations theory, there are roughly positive management actions that lead to employee motivation consequently improving performance (Marquis and Huston 2000). Some of these actions used by the change agent were empowering and allowing employees to make independent decisions as they could handle, training and developing, increasing freedom, sharing big picture objectives, treating employees as if work is natural and other ways of motivating staff as supported by Marquis and Huston (2006 an d Lezon 2002).The use of human relations theory in the implementation of this policy is well justified in contrast to other management theories. For example, theory X presumes that people must be coerced, controlled, directed and threatened with punishment (Lezon 2002). This theory adds that an average psyche has inherent dislike of work and likes to avoid responsibility (Marquis and Huston 2006). In other words, theory X prefers autocratic style while theory Y prefers participative style. Managers using theory y seek to enhance the employees capacity to exercise high levels of imagination, ingenuity and creativity solving organizational lines. With the human relations theory, members flavor special and involved rather than being controlled by threats and sanctions from the change agent (Dowding and Barr 2002).The team of health care professionals was aiming to achieve the same goal. This goal was to provide high quality care to patients approaching end of life. This involved a lot of organizational psychology and motivation to facilitate effective teamwork. Among the factors that facilitate effective teamwork, leadership is the most significant as stated by Clegg (2000). Toofany (2005) supports that leadership is on governments modernization agenda for the National Health Service and is an influencing factor. on that pointfore, the change agent needed as effective leadership style. To facilitate this, she applied the transformational leadership style.Markhan (1998) cited in Clegg (2000) defines transformational leadership style as a collaborative, consultative and consensus seeking. These are the same characteristics of the leadership style used by the change agent. Contrary to this leadership style is the transactional leadership style which is based on power of organizational position and authority to pay back and punish performance (Moiden 2002). Based on Rosner (1990)s research, Clegg (2000) states that gender affects leadership style and women pre fer transformational style. Perhaps this explains why the change agent chose this style for this particular change.As in any form of change process, resistance, which falls under the unfreezing stage of Lewins (1951) cited in Murphy (2006) change theory is one of the common obstacles that needed to be dealt with (Curtis and White 2002). By inspiring a shared vision within the team (McGuire and Kennerly 2006) the change agent managed to increase driving forces and reduce resisting forces at the same time. Clegg (2000) set vision as a very key ingredient of transformational leadership, adding that it should be engaging and inspiring.Transformational leadership was runner put forward by James Burns (1978) cited in Marquis and Huston (2006). According to him, a kind of mutual stimulation and elevation converts following into leaders, a fact shared by Murphy (2005). If a leader can stimulate followers, he or she can engage followers into a hassle solving attitude (McGuire and Kenner ly 2006). In addition, people engage together in a way that allows leaders and followers to raise each other to higher levels of motivation and morality (Marquis and Huston 2006). This approach emphasizes on the leaders ability to motivate, coach and empower the followers rather than control their behaviors (McGuire and Kennerly 2006). Moiden (2002) states that this style is widely used in all types of organizations in dealing with change.Frequently, it is contrasted with transactional leadership which is a traditional way in which followers freight is gained on the basis of exchange of reward, pay and security in return of reliable work (Mullins 2002). However McGuire and Kennerly (2006) state that if transactional leadership is predominantly used, followers are likely to place limits to organizational commitment and behave in a way only aimed at contract requirements. Despite the differences in miscellaneous leadership styles, most researchers conclude that there is no one leade rship style that is skilful for all circumstances (Reynolds and Rogers 2003). Fidler (1967) cited in Moiden (2002) agrees that a single leadership style is rarely practiced. Therefore situational theories were introduced in outrank to deal with various situations.Perhaps this is why the leader used the situational approach to leadership in parade to fitting the demands of different situations, an idea also shared by Marquis and Huston (2000). Reynolds and Rogers (2003) suggest that the effectiveness of daylight to day activities depends on balancing between the task at hand and human relations to meet everyones needs. Different competence levels, motivation levels and commitment levels of staff on this clinical area unloose why a situational approach was used in conjunction with transformational leadership style. Reynolds and Rogers (2003) support that situations like this require the leader to adapt their style. However, they warn that it is important to know when to lead fro m the front, when to empower and when to let go. This situational approach enabled the leader to work on followers strength and weaknesses.Moreover, Reynolds and Rogers (2003) warn that it is not always easy to find leadership styles that suite the needs of every situation and not everything falls into place from the beginning. Marquis and Huston (2000) criticize that situational theory concentrate too much on situation and focus less on interpersonal factors. take for was given to followers according their needs. Supportive behavior, as supported by Reynolds and Rogers (2003) helps people to feel favorable in their situations. This was facilitated by the use of a two way communication system which involved listening, praising, asking for help and problem solving.Consequently, as performance improved, the leaders supportive behavior shifted to foreign mission. missionary station was for the most part directed to staff with high competences, commitments and motivation. Reynolds and Rogers (2003) support that the style of leadership alters as performance improves from directing to learn to supporting to delegation. Basing on research studies, Reynolds and Rogers (2003) warns that using different approaches to different staff can practically voiceless in terms of developing the whole group as well as maintaining fairness. This further exposes the limitations of situational approach.Nevertheless, it is equally important to assess followers capabilities and developmental needs so this explains the relevance of situational approach to this clinical area. The delegation was directed to some members of the team while others still wanted to be directed. In addition, this was because of the leaders trust in people, running(a) to their strength and sharing the vision as supported by Kane-Urrabazo (2006). Delegation is defined as transferring responsibility of an activity to another individual and still remain accountable (Sullivan and Decker 2005).Davidson et al (1999) caution that critical thinking and sound decision making must be applied ahead delegating because it increases rather than decrease nurses responsibility. They clarify that to ensure safe outcome, delegation must be the right task, right circumstances, right person, right instructions and right supervision. Pearce (2006) shares the same thoughts and adds that you must be clear round what you delegate, inform other members, monitor performance, give feedback and evaluate the experience while remembering that you remain accountable. However, Kane-Urrabazo (2006) and Taylor (2007) fence in that delegation is another way of empowering the subordinates.However, like every team going through the process of change, problems arose and were resolved as they came. Apart from dealing with problems like resistance and lack of resources, there was an even bigger problem of interdisciplinary working for both the change agent and the subordinates. Although this policy was predominantly nurse orientated, it needed government agency by a doctor in order for a patient to be commenced on care of the dying pathway.Whether inside or outside health care, interdisciplinary working was introduced with the same concerns of improving quality (Hewison 2004). Interdisciplinary working has been emphasized by a number of government initiatives (Martin 2006b), more recently the NHS Plan (Department of Health 2000a). To ensure the demand for interdisciplinary working is met, there has been a lot of emphasis on professional education and training. Effective interdisciplinary working is meant to facilitate delivery of quality services and is primal to success of clinical governance (Braine 2006). However, Hewison (2004) argues that there is little evidence to support the effectiveness of interdisciplinary working. There is also insufficient evidence to support that collaboration improves quality of care given to patients (Hewison 2004).Nevertheless, if interdisciplinary working i s to be achieved it is important to appreciate the potential barriers to this type of working. In this particular organization there were some barriers that impeded interdisciplinary working. These barriers needed problem solving skills from both the change agent and the nurses. In some cases there were some disagreements between nurses and doctors as to when to commence the care of the dying pathway for a patient. Although the policy was self explanatory in terms of when to commence it, doctors were often reluctant to authorize it.Hewison (2004) states that occupational status, occupational knowledge, fear and distrust of other occupational groups are some of the barriers to effective interdisciplinary working. Additionally, different backgrounds, training, remuneration, enculturation and language can contribute to professional barriers, mistrust, misunderstanding and disagreements (Hewison 2004). To solve this problem the change agent and of age(p) members of the medical team h eld regular meetings to discuss problems like this. This way of problem solving is well recommended by Hewison (2004) who explains that if interdisciplinary working is to be successful, structures and procedures should be in place to support it.This is a way in which organization reflects emphasis on teams rather than individual professional groups. Hewison (2004) adds that if this is reinforced with communication between managers and other professional groups, it is likely to be successful. Perhaps in future interdisciplinary learning may be necessary to overcome some of the barriers to interdisciplinary working. Despite lack of evidence for its effectiveness, interdisciplinary learning has been identify as a government priority (Hewison 2004). Therefore study programmes for health care professionals are important to facilitate this approach to learning.