Leadership Style Paper Michael Tafoya David Campbell University of Phoenix Two leadership models—“operations” and “dyad. ” The operations model is the traditional and most effective model of leadership. The management structure on a team of supervisors, managers, and directors working together under the leadership of a vice president to coordinate and implement organizational initiatives. In essence, the supervisor reports to and is evaluated by their manager; the manager reports to and is evaluated by the director or vice president, and so on.
In most business settings the preferred model is an operational one—a pyramid structure with clear lines of authority and accountability. This structure is efficient and straightforward. Authority increases as one moves upward and falls ultimately on one shoulders. The strength of this structure is the clear lines of accountability—the supervisor reports to the manager who both directs staff and evaluates success. Health care, however: has unique differences and a new model, the dyad model, has taken root (Baldwin, Dimunation, & Alexander, 2011). The definition of “dyad model” varies across health care organizations.
In most health care systems the operations model remains intact the vice presidents are partnered with physician champions, who provided support for their recommendations. The dyad model provides physician engagement to build that trust. It opens communication between physician-nurse and physician-administration in a powerful way. The “microsystem” (language from the Institute of Medicine) dyad partnerships were formed between the department leads and the operations leads in ambulatory departments and hospital service areas. Drawbacks to Operations Management in Leadership
According to Baldwin, Dimunation, and Alexander (2011) one key drawback of the operations model is that, other than the chief medical officer, physicians hold no formal leadership roles. In addition most health care organizations, physicians are no longer owners but employees. In this sense, they should behave as employees and recognize their relative position within the organizational hierarchy. In the operations model, they would be excluded from positions of legitimate authority and influence unless they held title. For these reasons, the dyad model makes sense in health care.
A key challenge in the dyad model is to harness the leadership potential of the masters in business (MBA) who brings essential perspective and knowledge around the larger sphere of business and effectively partner them with the MD who lives intimately in the clinical realm. Leadership in Health Care Unlike business, where individuals enter the organization in leadership positions after completing a bachelor’s degree, the infrastructure in health care relies on the identification of individuals with clinical experience who demonstrate leadership potential. Integrated delivery systems require trusting partnerships between caregivers.
Because physicians hold a different status than nurses, the need for trust and communication is essential. When trust is engendered, the partnerships allow alignment and movement toward shared goals, both clinical, and organizational (Baldwin, Dimunation, ; Alexander, 2011). Benefits of the dyad model, foremost is partnership of operations and physician reduces the “us-them” perspective that plagues many health care organizations. This problem is so significant that many physician groups continue to maintain their independence from the health care setting that they practice in.
If the dyad model is to succeed, the organization must invest resources in increasing the physicians knowledge and skills around leadership. This model can create frustration for the MBA who is accustomed to autonomous decision making. The process of partnered decision making is more slowly up front and physicians are trained to be autonomous decision makers themselves. Complex Leadership in Health Care The health care industry is witnessing new hybrid organizational emerging and exhibiting diverse relational-structural alliances between physicians, hospitals and insurers says Bazzoli, Shortell, Dubbs, Cheeling, and Kralovec (1999).
Ford (2009) says meeting the challenges in leading and managing health care systems as complex adaptive organizations calls for additional competency in what theorists determine as ‘complex leadership’. With the advent of the complex adaptive organization, the leadership role thus changes from ‘providing answers’ or providing too much direction to creating the conditions in which followers’ behavior can work through inherent tensions and produce structure and innovation.
As complex leaders, healthcare administrators need to develop competencies in initiating three fundamental activities that enable managing turbulence in a nonequilibrium environment: (1) how to foster network construction at the frontline, middle, and top of the organization; (2) how to plant seeds to catalyse emergence from the bottom-up (3) how to nurture systematic thinking. The complex leader concept can be applied to what healthcare scholars recognize as an emerging, yet hitherto unwieldy organizational form to lead and manage, namely the complex adaptive organization.
Current knowledge of the leadership in public organizations, including health care, is based largely on the results obtained as a consequence of research in the private sector, none related to health care. Frequently, rules specific to management in the private sector organizations are transposed and exposed as “revealed truth” for public sector organizations. The fundamental mistake made by many authors writing about the current leadership in the public sector, including health care they do not take into account the political context of such organizations.
Many of existing concepts that can be found in literature regarding leadership in the public sector were created by the development and adaptation of already well-known approaches and enriched analysis of the importance of organizational context for decision-making process. Therefore, there exists a need for more empirical studies that will enrich existing theory as well as improve organizational performance (Fraczkiewicz-Wronka, Austen1, ; Wronka, (2010). Conclusion The most important issue around leadership isn’t necessarily what model, but how well does a model succeed.
On the surface, this question may appear simple, but in reality, there is little objective criteria to measure leadership model effectiveness in health care. In new leadership models they show that CEOs exhibit transformational, transactional and laissez-faire qualities. Operational management leadership style in nonprofit organizations at the level of CEOs is more transformational than transactional (Singer, ; Singer A, 1990; Gilmartin ; D’Aunno, 2008). Management models in health care are more influential than leadership style.
A manager may be limited in their management style. Health care will continue to innovate and search itself out for the most effective leadership style. References Baldwin, K. , Dimunation, N. , ; Alexander, J. (2011). Health care leadership and the dyad model. Physician Executive, 37(4), 66-70. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bazzoli, G. J. , Shortell, S. M. , Dubbs, N. , Cheeling, C. , Kralovec, P. (1999). A taxonomy of health networks and systems: bringing order out of chaos. Health Services Res, 33, 1683–1717. Ford, R. (2009).
Complex leadership competency in health care: towards framing a theory of practice. Health Services Management Research: An Official Journal Of The Association Of University Programs In Health Administration / HSMC, AUPHA, 22(3), 101-114. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Fraczkiewicz-Wronka, A. , Austen1, A. , ; Wronka, M. (2010). An empirical research on the leadership and effectiveness in public healthcare organizations: Lesson from transition economy. Journal of US-China Public Administration, 7(2), 1-15. Retrieved from EBSCOhost