Evaluating Leadership Development Needs in a Health Care Setting Through a Partnership Approach

Abstract

The Problem. Strategic HRD contributes to creating an environment in which objectives and improved performance can be realized through leadership development (LD). Despite considerable investment in LD by public and private sector organizations in North America and Europe, these efforts often fail to produce significant changes in leaders' behaviors, organizational culture, or organizational performance. As a result, too often leadership development programs (LDPs) are "one size fits all" or a prepackaged competency model without paying attention to individual and contextual differences. A more collaborative approach in the design and delivery of LD has been advocated; however, to date little research has documented or evaluated this at the pre-LDP or needs assessment stage. The Solution.This research argues that LD should be a collaborative process involving all stakeholders and that such a partnership approach starts at the needs assessment phase. The research documents and evaluates a three-phase LD needs assessment process in a health care setting. Adopting a case study methodology, it draws primarily upon qualitative data collected from focus groups, written submissions, and interviews with senior and middle managers employed in a provincial health authority, Horizon Health Network, located in Atlantic Canada.at VITERBO UNIV on February 4, 2015 adh.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Effective Leadership: From The Perspective of Trait Theory and Behavior Theory

“…According to (Grandy & Holton, 2013), organizational change can be conceptualized based on three types of change. The first type referred to as "smooth incremental change" is a change that takes place slowly and in a systematic and predictable way.…”

Self-determination and leader development

“…This type of environment can lead to anxiety and insecurity in learning (Gagnon, 2008). External factors such as mandates undermine motivation because of the negative nature of forced actions (Ford and Harding, 2007; Grandy and Holton, 2013; Ryan and Deci, 2000). These individuals have the absolute least amount of self-determination in their leader development programme since their initial and pursuing self-determination is low.…”

“…From a self-determination theory perspective, the degree of autonomy has critical implications for performance and overall well-being. Researchers in the area of leader development encourage individuals to be personally involved in their leader development as opposed to development being imposed upon them for the purpose of enhancing critical understandings of their growth capacities (Ford and Harding, 2007; Grandy and Holton, 2013; Parker, 2006; Willmott, 2006). Specifically, Ford and Harding (2007) argue that participants in leader development programmes should be co-creators of the programme.…”

“…This is problematic because research in psychology suggests that individuals are more committed to initiatives when they have choice in the process (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Without choice in leader training, it is possible that the negative nature of forced actions reduces the participant commitment and performance in the learning activities (Ford and Harding, 2007; Grandy and Holton, 2013; Ryan and Deci, 2000). This article provides an empirical examination of a large-scale leader training programme with the hope of detangling how autonomy or self-determination impacts leader skill development.…”

Prioritizing health leadership capabilities in Canada

“…4 Competency and capability frameworks have been criticized on the grounds that they are overly broad, 5 individualized, 6,7 and inattentive to unique organizational cultures and contexts. 8 In contrast, proponents of LEADS argue that this particular framework was designed for use in complex and ever-changing systems, thus capturing context, and that it engages with the interpersonal and relational aspects of leadership often ignored in other frameworks. 9 Our empirical test of LEADS provides some insight into the applicability of the framework to health leaders’ everyday practice; in particular, we examine how leaders prioritize the many aspects of leadership covered by the framework when engaged in a major health reform initiative involving budget and time constraints.…”