Ethical Leadership: Healthcare Report (Essay Sample)

ETHICAL LEADERSHIP: HEALTHCARE REPORT By (Name) Course Professor School City/State Date Table of Contents TOC \h \u \z \t "Heading 1,1,Heading 2,2,Heading 3,3,Heading 4,4,Heading 5,5,Heading 6,6,"Task 1: Distributed Leadership Models3Distributed Leadership Models3Implications of Devolved Decision-Making5Ethical Considerations6Task 2: Cross-Cultural Management6Cross-Cultural Management Issues6Challenges and Solutions8Reference List10 Task 1: Distributed Leadership Models Distributed Leadership Models Policymakers and academics worldwide are paying increasing attention to healthcare leadership (Beirne, 2017). The interest is greater in the UK National Health Service (NHS), where numerous initiatives have focused on the attributes, roles, and nature of leaders and leadership in an attempt to improve organisational and clinical effectiveness (Forsyth and Mason, 2017). Despite efforts in the last decade, the UK health system faces serious deficits in patient safety and quality of care (McKee et al., 2013). High-profile scandals related to this have accentuated the political focus on leadership in healthcare. Such scandals include the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Stafford Hospital failings between 2005 and 2009 (Martin et al., 2015). The inquiries into these failings showed significant shortcomings in patient care standards and raised questions about leadership and culture in the NHS. It led to the implementation of various leadership initiatives, such as sponsoring clinical leadership research and establishing the England NHS Leadership Academy (Boak et al., 2015). Many of these initiatives are predicated on the premise that leadership can be held responsible for perceived service flaws and their fixes in some way. Traditional leadership theories focus on an individual formal leader’s attitudes, behaviours, and traits. Distributed leadership models focus on how leadership is shared among individuals across various hierarchical levels over time (Anderson and Sun, 2017). For example, a study on quality improvement showed the manifestation of change leadership not just through middle managers and senior leaders but also through informal opinion champions and leaders over time and at different hierarchical levels (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Their leadership actions were not sequential but concurrent and cumulatively impacted efforts for change. Distributed leadership extends beyond the number of individuals participating in any leadership activity (Boak et al., 2015). Therefore, distributed leadership is the shared leadership practices or actions that stretch across various individuals and, at times, organisational or hierarchical boundaries over time. Generally, distributed leadership is intended for empowerment and engagement to ensure a vertical power flow from the centre, sometimes even beyond the organisation’s boundaries (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Thus, it is argued that power should be distributed more equally than in traditional hierarchies and that employees at various levels should be able to make decisions and implement them concertively (Anderson and Sun, 2017). Distributed leadership is contrasted with traditional forms of leadership because it emphasises leadership as dispersed socially and organisationally (McKee et al., 2013). Traditional leadership theories have typically cast the leader as a hero, which is particularly problematic because it focuses on praising for achieved successes and blaming for failed endeavours on the individual leader. Distributed leadership has been proposed as an approach that can benefit the increasingly complex healthcare environment where policymakers must address pluralistic settings with different values on what is essential (Forsyth and Mason, 2017). The distributed leadership theory differs from traditional leadership forms because it allows people across an organisation and holding different levels to voice their opinions, encourage decision-making, and lead according to their expertise (Anderson and Sun, 2017). It appears especially attractive in healthcare organisations because of the various functions and roles related to clinical and other specialities (Martin et al., 2015). Distributed leadership is supposed to work by allowing different voices to be heard and integrating different parts and functions around shared purpose or values (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Therefore, although leadership may be exercised in different situations by different people, the outcomes should be consistent and supportive of promoting organisational effectiveness. Distributed leadership is especially relevant to inter-organisational healthcare networks. The idea of a formal leader heading the hierarchy does not apply to networks. Several leaders exist in networks distributed physically among the member organisations (Willcocks and Wibberley, 2015). Therefore, leadership is distributed vertically in the organisation and distributed horizontally among the organisations involved. Administrative leaders have limited control over physicians in health care, reinforcing the leadership distribution vertically and making clinician engagement crucial (McKee et al., 2013). Thus, leadership in healthcare networks is distributed intrinsically without a single leader or organisation being responsible for unilaterally directing the activities of those involved in the network. However, distributed leadership does not suppress or replace an individual leader’s contribution and role (Anderson and Sun, 2017). The leadership source may be one or multiple individuals. Distributed leadership may influence a leader’s action by limiting any one leader’s control and power, thus encouraging collaboration (Martin et al., 2015). Distributed leadership may also impact distributed leadership. For instance, utilising a leadership style that empowers followers can create an atmosphere of trust, supporting employees’ perceived agency in implementing distributive practices of leadership (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Similarly, formal leaders can create a collaborative culture emphasising power sharing, thereby encouraging the unfolding of distributed leadership. Regardless of the enthusiasm for distributed leadership, responsibility pluralisation under NHS reforms has been seen as potentially leaving no one in charge (Willcocks and Wibberley, 2015). Overall, there is a strong sense of organisational uncertainty combined with losing focus on patient safety and quality care. Many parties need clarification on the intersecting bodies, proliferation of tiers, and lack of coherence in applying distributed leadership models (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Literature shows that some parties suggest that initiatives are duplicated, and there is a presence of an overload of individuals claiming leadership (Boak et al., 2015). Literature also shows that distributed leadership requires more clarity on the individual in charge and turbulence in individual and organisational leadership. Distributed leadership also appears to abandon old leadership entirely. Although distributed leadership has pluralised responsibility and engages multiple stakeholders for healthcare improvement, it risks diluting quality and safety and decentralising leadership such that everyone’s responsibility becomes nobody’s (Martin et al., 2015). There are no easy answers on how to load for quality and safety effectively, but some challenges that new leadership models, such as distributed leadership, are valuable on their own, suggesting that the most effective models would be those that combine traditional and modern strategies (Forsyth and Mason, 2017). Thus, critics nuance the effectiveness of distributed leadership models, referencing the role of informal and formal power structures in healthcare (McKee et al., 2013). Therefore, distributed leadership should be complemented by various elements of hierarchical leadership. For example, top-level backing for healthcare is essential. Without the support of senior leadership, the will and enthusiasm of those at the sharp end may be vulnerable (Forsyth and Mason, 2017). Therefore, while staff at both ends have crucial roles in distributed leadership, the distribution of leadership may go too far; thus, clarity and coherence are crucial in implementing distributive leadership models in integrated care services. Implications of Devolved Decision-Making Decision-making is one of the leaders’ most critical functions in integrated care systems. However, in many sectors, decisions are expected to be made by the leaders and implemented by those lower down the hierarchy (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022). Nonetheless, with the growing need for more flexible, dynamic, and reactive care systems, the linear, centralised, and bureaucratic decision-making approach is scrutinised significantly (Xu et al., 2021). In response, integrated care systems are looking more closely at the meaning of moving decision-making authority closer to those at the frontline (Rycroft-Malone et al., 2015). It is particularly essential in the fast-paced care environment where patient lives are on the line. Distributed leadership models use devolved decision-making in integrated care systems. It aims to increase efficiency and ensure faster decision-making since the decision-making is moved even to the frontline workers (Willcocks and Wibberley, 2015). It allows those involved in the leadership network to operate autonomously and directly manage many of the functions previously controlled by the typical leadership centre. Unfortunately, devolved decision-making in distributed leadership slows leaders’ decision-making processes (Xu et al., 2021). In traditional leadership models, only one person is responsible for making decisions in the organisation; thus, there is a high implementation speed. Unfortunately, multiple voices contribute to the decision-making process in dis...