Potential challenges facing distributed leadership in health care: evidence from the UK National Health Service.

The discourse of leaderism in health care has been a subject of much academic and practical debate. Recently, distributed leadership (DL) has been adopted as a key strand of policy in the UK National Health Service (NHS). However, there is some confusion over the meaning of DL and uncertainty over its application to clinical and non-clinical staff. This article examines the potential for DL in the NHS by drawing on qualitative data from three co-located health-care organisations that embraced DL as part of their organisational strategy. Recent theorising positions DL as a hybrid model combining focused and dispersed leadership; however, our data raise important challenges for policymakers and senior managers who are implementing such a leadership policy. We show that there are three distinct forms of disconnect and that these pose a significant problem for DL. However, we argue that instead of these disconnects posing a significant problem for the discourse of leaderism, they enable a fantasy of leadership that draws on and supports the discourse.

Addressing complex healthcare problems in diverse settings: insights from activity theory.

In the U.K., approaches to policy implementation, service improvement and quality assurance treat policy, management and clinical care as separate, hierarchical domains. They are often based on the central knowledge transfer (KT) theory idea that best practice solutions to complex problems can be identified and 'rolled out' across organisations. When the designated 'best practice' is not implemented, this is interpreted as local--particularly management--failure. Remedial actions include reiterating policy aims and tightening performance management of solution implementation, frequently to no avail. We propose activity theory (AT) as an alternative approach to identifying and understanding the challenges of addressing complex healthcare problems across diverse settings. AT challenges the KT conceptual separations between levels of policy, management and clinical care. It does not regard knowledge and practice as separable, and does not understand them in the commodified way that has typified some versions of KT theory. Instead, AT focuses on "objects of activity" which can be contested. It sees new practice as emerging from contradiction and understands knowledge and practice as fundamentally entwined, not separate. From an AT perspective, there can be no single best practice. The contributions of AT are that it enables us to understand the dynamics of knowledge-practice in activities rather than between levels. It shows how efforts to reduce variation from best practice may paradoxically remove a key source of practice improvement. After explaining the principles of AT we illustrate its explanatory potential through an ethnographic study of primary healthcare teams responding to a policy aim of reducing inappropriate hospital admissions of older people by the 'best practice' of rapid response teams.

Dialogues and dialetics: limits to clinician-manager interaction in healthcare organizations.

This paper examines clinician-manager interactions within healthcare organizations in the U.K. and contrasts the notions of dialetics and dialogues within such interactions. We draw particularly on Bakhtin's work on dialogue to frame our focal research question, which considers the extent to which clinician-manager interactions are dialogic. Using data drawn from a thirty-two month study of five U.K. healthcare organizations we suggest that clinician-manager interactions are more dialectic than dialogic in their orientation. Further, we suggest that, despite the appearance of dialogical possibility between clinicians and non-clinicians, the tendency to dialectic positioning reinforces opposition between these groups and we conclude that local, rather than system-wide interventions, offer the best means of disrupting these dialectics and fostering productive dialogues.