Making do by getting real: Psychological contract violations and proactive career agency among medical professionals.

BACKGROUND: Health care professionals face greater uncertainty in their careers as traditional jobs wither and new, organizationally controlled jobs proliferate, reducing economic security and professional autonomy. PURPOSE: We apply psychological contract and self-efficacy theory to examine the career agency of early-career physicians. We ask the following: (a) What are the unfulfilled expectations and emotions experienced by young physicians at the training and early career stages? (b) What are the forms of career agency exhibited by young physicians in response to unfulfillment? METHODOLOGY: We conducted a study on 48 U.K. early-career primary care physicians, known as general practitioners. The sample comprised both trainees as well as newly qualified physicians. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. RESULTS: Physicians interpreted their early-career experiences based on predominantly ideological expectations around what it means to be a successful professional. However, the realities of practice resulted in highly emotional experiences of violation that were associated with a "reactive" agency and job behaviors that were more transactional and less relational. CONCLUSION: This study identifies the expectations of early career professionals, which helps understand how and why psychological contract violations occur. It also expands the conceptualization of career agency from a positively framed aspect of professional behavior to one that includes haphazard and self-serving elements. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our study highlights several implications of the shifts in physician career agency for primary care practice. It discusses the potential effects of the purposeful self-interest among doctors on professional identity and power, as well as patient care.

Merger and post-merger integration at Oxford University Hospitals: mixed-methods evaluation and lessons learned.

PURPOSE: Hospital mergers are common in the United Kingdom and internationally. However, mergers rarely achieve their intended benefits and are often damaging. This study builds on existing literature by presenting a case study evaluating a merger of two hospitals in Oxford, United Kingdom with three distinct characteristics: merger between two university hospitals, merger between a generalist and specialist hospital and merger between two hospitals of differing size. In doing so, the study draws practical lessons for other healthcare organisations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Mixed-methods single-case evaluation. Qualitative data from 19 individual interviews and three focus groups were analysed thematically, using constant comparison to synthesise and interpret findings. Qualitative data were triangulated with quantitative clinical and financial data. To maximise research value, the study was co-created with practitioners. FINDINGS: The merger was a relative success with mixed improvement in clinical performance and strong improvement in financial and organisational performance. The merged organisation received an improved inspection rating, became debt-free and achieved Foundation Trust status. The study draws six lessons relating to the contingencies that can make mergers a success: (1) Develop a strong clinical rationale, (2) Communicate the change strategy widely and early, (3) Increase engagement and collaboration at all levels, (4) Be transparent and realistic about the costs and benefits, (5) Be sensitive to the feelings of the other organisation and (6) Integrate different organizational cultures effectively. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This case study provides empirical evidence on the outcome of merger in a university hospital setting. Despite the relatively positive outcome, there is no strong evidence that the benefits could not have been achieved without merger. Given that mergers remain prevalent worldwide, the practical lessons might be useful for other healthcare organisations considering merger.

Making sense of effective partnerships among senior leaders in the National Health Service.

BACKGROUND: Changing health care systems depend on strong organizational leadership that realizes the collaborative potential of both physician and nonphysician leaders. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to seek insight into the everyday health care leader experience by examining 24 physician and nonphysician leaders working in the U.K. National Health Service. We explored (a) how they make sense of and act with respect to specific collaborative tensions in their interactions and (b) which aspects of their everyday leadership contexts heighten the probability for producing and resolving such tensions. METHODOLOGY: We conducted 24 in-depth interviews with physician and nonphysician leaders in job titles including Chief Operating Officer, Managing Director, Medical Director, and Clinical Director. Ideas from the social psychological perspectives of sensemaking, organizational role theory, and organizational citizenship behavior helped frame the study. RESULTS: We identified four areas of ongoing tension between senior leaders. Each of these was linked to a set of underlying drivers, with the strongest support for drivers with interpersonal roots. Effective strategies for resolving tensions involved significant effort by leaders at improving the interpersonal dynamics associated with everyday interaction and forging relational connections through enhanced trust within the leadership team. CONCLUSION: This study outlines the organizational and individual characteristics that lend to effective collaboration among senior health care leadership and the types of collaborative tensions likely to be experienced by senior health care leaders. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Organizations should provide greater role clarity for senior leadership roles, promote "soft" interpersonal competencies within them, and better assess potential leaders for success in senior roles. Organizational support in the form of facilitation, time, and spaces to learn together can provide a better context for collaborative decision-making.