Journal of nursing management · 2012
Understanding avoidant leadership in health care: findings from a secondary analysis of two qualitative studies.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Jackson Debra, Hutchinson Marie, Peters Kath, Luck Lauretta, Saltman Deborah
Аннотация
AIM: To illuminate ways that avoidant leadership can be enacted in contemporary clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: Avoidance is identified in relation to laissez-faire leadership and passive avoidant leadership. However, the nature and characteristics of avoidance and how it can be enacted in a clinical environment are not detailed.
METHODS: This paper applied secondary analysis to data from two qualitative studies.
RESULTS: We have identified three forms of avoidant leader response: placating avoidance, where leaders affirmed concerns but abstained from action; equivocal avoidance, where leaders were ambivalent in their response; and hostile avoidance, where the failure of leaders to address concerns escalated hostility towards the complainant.
CONCLUSIONS: Through secondary analysis of two existing sets of data, we have shed new light on avoidant leaderships and how it can be enacted in contemporary clinical settings. Further work needs to be undertaken to better understand this leadership style.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: We recommend that organizations ensure that all nurse leaders are aware of how best to respond to concerns of wrongdoing and that mechanisms are created to ensure timely feedback is provided about the actions taken.
BACKGROUND: Avoidance is identified in relation to laissez-faire leadership and passive avoidant leadership. However, the nature and characteristics of avoidance and how it can be enacted in a clinical environment are not detailed.
METHODS: This paper applied secondary analysis to data from two qualitative studies.
RESULTS: We have identified three forms of avoidant leader response: placating avoidance, where leaders affirmed concerns but abstained from action; equivocal avoidance, where leaders were ambivalent in their response; and hostile avoidance, where the failure of leaders to address concerns escalated hostility towards the complainant.
CONCLUSIONS: Through secondary analysis of two existing sets of data, we have shed new light on avoidant leaderships and how it can be enacted in contemporary clinical settings. Further work needs to be undertaken to better understand this leadership style.
IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: We recommend that organizations ensure that all nurse leaders are aware of how best to respond to concerns of wrongdoing and that mechanisms are created to ensure timely feedback is provided about the actions taken.