Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Medical leadership and general practice: seductive or dictatorial?

Steve Iliffe and Jill Manthorpe
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (679): 52-53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X700817
Steve Iliffe
University College London, London.
Roles: Emeritus Professor of Primary Care for Older People
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jill Manthorpe
Professor of Social Work and Director of the NIHR Social Care Workforce Research Unit, Kings College London, London.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Leadership has become fashionable in health services around the world. The National Health Service (NHS) has led the way with a Medical Leadership Competency Framework jointly developed by the NHS Institute of Innovation and Improvement and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in 2010, with the intention of embedding it in undergraduate and postgraduate curricula. According to Warren and Carnall: ‘It is indisputable that to deliver high-quality care consistently to patients requires, among many other factors, good medical leadership’.1

Yet the empirical evidence for the importance of ‘leadership’ as a distinct characteristic is thin,2 and the return on investment in leadership training programmes remains largely unmeasured worldwide.3 A systematic review of the evidence about leadership says politely: ‘the concept of leadership … seems not to be fully developed’.4 A more recent international review of leadership styles, models, and theories, found health services leadership could be evaluated as ‘transformational’, ‘situational’, ‘servant–leader relationship’, or ‘authentic’.5 Less common styles were ‘quantum’ (reflective), ‘charismatic’, and ‘clinical’. The plethora of leadership styles suggests that medical leadership has multiple meanings, including the ‘informal leadership’ observed in some Clinical Commissioning Groups.6

THE BADGE OF LEADERSHIP

Why, then, has the variously defined idea of medical leadership become so prominent in policy debates in the NHS? And what does medical leadership mean for GPs facing absorption into trusts, sustainability and transformation plans, accountable care organisations, primary care homes, and other burgeoning institutional forms?

In a BJGP editorial in 2012, four GP educators described the difficulty of embedding learning about leadership into GP training, warning that leadership could simply become: ‘a badge that doctors wear, rather than a way of being, in which they believe’.7 They also commented on the irony of prominence being given to leadership: ‘just at the time that the opportunities for self-direction are diminishing’,7 but they did not pursue this idea for fear of being thought cynical.

They were right to be sceptical about the depth of leadership training, in our view, but could have pursued the paradox usefully. Our experiences of working with GPs on research and development projects since the fund-holding period, suggest to us, that leadership qualities may be relatively common at practice level, but not widespread in the evolving structures of NHS primary care. Two examples highlight the limited purchase of leadership in general practice. A survey of GPs in one county, in 2007, found limited leadership behaviours that matched a limited culture of innovation in the practices.8 Apart from clinical audits and significant event analyses, quality improvement methods were not adopted by most responding practices. The authors concluded that practices needed support to enhance leadership skills, encourage innovation and develop quality improvement skills, to accelerate practice development, while noting that professionalised organisations, like practices, are less capable of breaking away from established organisational patterns.

Almost a decade later, in 2016, an analysis of GP federations (and similar entities like ‘super practices’) covering 41 million patients in England revealed ‘a lack of ambition and priorities’.9 Although there were common themes across the federations, like outcomes, 7-day working and clinical governance, the commonest theme was ‘no plan’. Yet the leadership tasks in primary care were by then clear: to show and promote a clear sense of purpose, to motivate teams and to improve system performance.10 The General Medical Council’s (GMC) guidance on leadership and management for doctors published in 2012 added operational detail to these tasks, including working with colleagues, maintaining and improving standards of care, and planning, using and managing resources.11

A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

We think it may help to consider this poorly developed idea of medical leadership from a sociological perspective, outside the clinical disciplines and managerial thinking of the NHS. Medical leadership may not be a set of activities (like those in the GMC 2012 briefing11) at all, but rather an optimistic discourse12 which co-opts a critical mass of practitioners to support NHS policy aims. In this policy construction of leadership, visions and values are owned by leaders, informed by patients, and delivered by staff.

To achieve policy aims medical leaders reconcile paradoxes, resolve uncertainties, and manage meaning.13 The leadership discourse is a rhetorical device to engage practitioners, staff, and the public in NHS transformation, improvement in the quality of care, and increased efficiency and sustainability. It also mitigates the tension between a policy vision of a decentralised health service and the reality of centralised and intensifying performance management, partly by minimising dissent. The call for leadership turns the implementation of policy into everyone’s responsibility, a common aim, and even one’s sense of self. Rughani and colleagues7 need not have feared the paradox they spotted; medical leadership and shrinking autonomy go hand-in-hand. Or perhaps they should have feared it more, because in a late modern society of autonomous individuals, management must be ‘seductive as well as dictatorial’.12

Our encounters with GPs suggest to us that some — perhaps most — have doubts about the current top-down recruitment drive for leaders, even though they see where clinical care needs to improve. Given the organisational flux and the rising workload pressures in general practice, it may be difficult to think through how medical leadership might emerge from below, supported by the informal yet influential leaders identified by Marshall and colleagues,6 and to imagine what it would look like if it did. A first step might be to define medical leadership more precisely, and then to work out how to measure its impact in general practice on organisational change, quality of care, and sustainability.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and should not be interpreted as those of the NIHR, the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Warren OJ,
    2. Carnall R
    (2011) Medical leadership: why it’s important, what is required, and how we develop it. Postgrad Med J 87(1023):27–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Wright BE,
    2. Pandey SK
    (2009) Transformational Leadership in the public sector: does structure matter? J Public Adm Res Theory 20(1):75–89.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Jorm C,
    2. Parker M
    (2014) Medical leadership is the new black: or is it? Aust Health Rev 39(2):217–219.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Reichenpfader U,
    2. Carlfjord S,
    3. Nilsen P
    (2015) Leadership in evidence-based practice: a systematic review. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl) 28(4):298–316.
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Carrara GLR,
    2. Bernardes A,
    3. Balsanelli AP,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Use of instruments to evaluate leadership in nursing and health services. Rev Gaucha Enferm 38(3):e0060.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    1. Marshall M,
    2. Holti R,
    3. Hartley J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) GP leadership in clinical commissioning groups: a qualitative multi-case study approach across England. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X696197.
  7. 7.↵
    1. Rughani A,
    2. Godden A,
    3. Patterson D,
    4. Smithson H
    (2012) Training for leadership. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp12X616229.
  8. 8.↵
    1. Apekey TA,
    2. McSorley G,
    3. Tilling M,
    4. Siriwardena AN
    (2011) Room for improvement? Leadership, innovation culture and uptake of quality improvement methods in general practice. J Eval Clin Pract 17(2):311–318.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Renaud-Komiya N
    (Jan, 2016) Exclusive: GP groups cover most of England but ‘lack ambition and priorities’ Health Services Journal 6:https://www.hsj.co.uk/primary-care/exclusive-gp-groups-cover-most-of-england-but-lack-ambition-and-priorities/7001120.article (accessed 16 Jan 2019).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Storey J,
    2. Holti R
    (2013) Towards a New Model of Leadership for the NHS. NHS Leadership Academy.
  11. 11.↵
    1. General Medical Council
    (2012) Leadership and management for all doctors. GMC, https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/leadership-and-management-for-all-doctors (accessed 16 Jan 2019).
  12. 12.↵
    1. Martin GP,
    2. Learmonth M
    (2012) A critical account of the rise and spread of ‘leadership’: the case of UK healthcare. Soc Sci Med 74(3):281–288.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Kempster S,
    2. Parry KW
    (2011) Grounded theory and leadership research: a critical realist perspective. Leadership Q 22(1):106–120.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (679)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 679
February 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Medical leadership and general practice: seductive or dictatorial?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Medical leadership and general practice: seductive or dictatorial?
Steve Iliffe, Jill Manthorpe
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (679): 52-53. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X700817

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Medical leadership and general practice: seductive or dictatorial?
Steve Iliffe, Jill Manthorpe
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (679): 52-53. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X700817
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • THE BADGE OF LEADERSHIP
    • A SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Practice-based pharmacists: considerations for general practices
  • Primary care: a national asset
  • Why should we prioritise smoking cessation for people with mental health conditions?
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242