Search results

Organizations recognize the need to attract and successfully manage talented people, but with the balance of power lying in the hands of the cleverest and most talented, this requires both courage and consideration. Marcus Powell and Guy Lubitsh of Ashridge Consulting discuss the results of recent talent‐management research and propose a five‐point plan.

To understand the partnership between clinicians and academics who come together to provide high-quality care alongside research and innovation, identifying challenges and productive conditions for innovation and collaboration across multi-disciplinary teams.

An explorative action research methodology was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 clinical, academic and executive leads at a large metropolitan tertiary care hospital with an academic health services portfolio in the UK.

Clinical leaders recognise the division of limited resource, restrictive employment contracts and the divergent priorities of each organisation as challenges hindering the collaborative process and derailing innovation. Developing a culture of respect, valuing and investing in individuals and allowing time and space for interaction help facilitate successful innovation and collaboration. Successfully leading collaborative innovation requires a combination of kindness, conviction and empowerment, alongside the articulation of a vision and accountability.

Action research continues at this site, and further enquiry into the experiences, challenges and solutions of non-leaders when collaborating and innovating will be captured to present views across the organisation.

Clinical and academic collaboration and innovation are essential to the continued success of healthcare. To ensure hospitals can continue to facilitate this in increasingly challenging circumstances, they must ensure longevity and stability of teams, devote time and resource to research and innovation, nurture interpersonal skills and develop kind and empowering leaders.

This work uniquely focuses on a real-time collaborative and innovative development. By employing action research while this development was happening, we were able to access the real time views of those at the centre of that collaboration. We offer insight into the challenges and effective solutions that consultant-level clinical leaders encounter when attempting to innovate and collaborate in practice.

The study investigated the impact of theory of constraints (TOC), a change methodology previously employed in the private sector and now adapted to the health sector, on three NHS Trust departments, Neurosurgery, Eyes and ENT, especially in relation to reducing waiting lists in the system and improving throughput of patients.Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected over a period of 40 months, on a number of NHS performance indicators, before and after the TOC intervention. An interrupted time series design with switching replications was used to investigate the impact of the intervention.Findings – An overall ARIMA analysis indicated that TOC had an impact in both Eyes and ENT. Out of 18 measures, 16 went in the direction of the hypotheses, the probability of these changes in the predicted direction by chance alone was 0.0006. However, there was a lack of significant improvements in neurosurgery that was associated with the size of the system, complexity of treating neurological disorder, heavy reliance on support services, impact of emergencies on elective work and the motivation and receptiveness of staff to the proposed changes.Practical implications – In order for organisations to maximise the benefits of TOC organisations should take into account the social environment in which they exist.Originality/value – The importance of customising the intervention to the local needs of each department, and the requirements for leadership and robust project management are highlighted in this study. Failure to do so can potentially derail the change process.

Leadership in the 21st century can be a minefield. Power to the people, and to the shareholders, is the order of the day, and the autocratic route is rarely an acceptable option ‐ even in entrepreneurial‐based organizations where it was once deemed alright for strong‐willed leaders to firmly stamp their vision and authority on others.

In this chapter, Barbara Zesik draws on her experience as an HR Director in international businesses and on her empirical research with actors in talent situations across multiple industry sectors to explore the tensions between the rhetoric and reality of life in talent pools. Focussing on the relatively under-researched social and political aspects of managing talent and using seldom heard voices from people in talent programmes she illustrates how talent identification and management ‘really works’ and offers suggestions for better practice.

Managerial anxiety as a key obstacle to managerial capability, effectiveness and meaningful talent management is explored and organisational failures, such as the lack of development for managers and the persistent use of lag-measures, such as performance ratings, in talent assessment are analysed. Empirical research, conducted applying a social constructivist perspective, is relevant to academics and practitioners alike by offering a less theoretical, and perhaps more realistic perspective of talent management practices in organisations for academics and a more pragmatic, approachable and relatable viewpoint for practitioners.

To meet future healthcare needs, primary care is undergoing a transformation in which innovations and new ways of working play an important role. However, successful innovations depend on joint learning and rewarding collaborations between healthcare and other stakeholders. This study aims to explore how learning develops when entrepreneurs, healthcare professionals and older people collaborate in a primary care living lab.

The study had an action research design and was conducted at a clinically embedded living lab at a primary care centre on the west coast of Sweden. Data consisted of e-mail conversations, recordings from design meetings and three group interviews with each party (entrepreneurs, healthcare professionals and older people). Data were analysed with inductive qualitative content analysis.

An overarching theme, “To share each other’s worlds in an arranged space for learning”, was found, followed by three categories, “Prerequisites for learning”, “Strategies to achieve learning” and “To learn from and with each other”. These three categories comprise eight subcategories.

This research contributes to knowledge regarding the need for arranged spaces for learning and innovation in primary care and how collaborative learning can contribute to the development of practice.