Operational competency development in E and F grade nursing staff: preparation for management

Are healthcare middle management jobs extreme jobs?

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper is to explore the incidence of "extreme jobs" among middle managers in acute hospitals, and to identify individual and organizational implications.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH

The paper is based on interviews and focus groups with managers at six hospitals, a "proof of concept" pilot with an operations management team, and a survey administered at five hospitals.

FINDINGS

Six of the original dimensions of extreme jobs, identified in commercial settings, apply to hospital management: long hours, unpredictable work patterns, tight deadlines with fast pace, broad responsibility, "24/7 availability", mentoring and coaching. Six healthcare-specific dimensions were identified: making life or death decisions, conflicting priorities, being required to do more with fewer resources, responding to regulatory bodies, the need to involve many people before introducing improvements, fighting a negative climate. Around 75 per cent of hospital middle managers have extreme jobs.

RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS

This extreme healthcare management job model was derived inductively from a qualitative study involving a small number of respondents. While the evidence suggests that extreme jobs are common, further research is required to assess the antecedents, incidence, and implications of these working practices.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

A varied, intense, fast-paced role with responsibility and long hours can be rewarding, for some. However, multi-tasking across complex roles can lead to fatigue, burnout, and mistakes, patient care may be compromised, and family life may be adversely affected.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE

As far as the authors can ascertain, there are no other studies exploring acute sector management roles through an extreme jobs lens.

How do they manage? A qualitative study of the realities of middle and front-line management work in health care

This project addressed three questions. First, how are middle management roles in acute care settings changing, and what are the implications of these developments? Second, how are changes managed following serious incidents, when recommendations from investigations are not always acted on? Third, how are clinical and organisational outcomes influenced by management practice, and what properties should an ‘enabling environment’ possess to support those contributions?

Data were gathered from around 1200 managers in six trusts through interviews, focus groups, management briefings, a survey with 600 responses, and serious incident case studies. For this project, ‘middle management’ meant any role below board level that included managerial responsibilities. Evidence provided by trust workforce information offices revealed that the management function is widely distributed, with > 30% of hospital staff holding either full-time management posts or ‘hybrid’ roles combining managerial with clinical or medical responsibilities. Hybrids outnumber full-time managers by four to one, but most have only limited management training, and some do not consider themselves to be managers. Management capabilities now at a premium include political skills, resilience, developing interprofessional collaboration, addressing ‘wicked problems’, performance management and financial skills.

Case study evidence reveals multiple barriers to the implementation of change following serious incidents. These barriers relate to the complex causes of most incidents, the difficulties in establishing and agreeing appropriate action plans and the subsequent problems of implementing ‘defensive’ change agendas. The conclusions from these case studies suggest that the management of serious incidents could potentially be strengthened by adding a change management perspective to the current organisational learning focus, by complementing root cause and timeline analysis methods with ‘mess mapping’ processes and by exploring opportunities to introduce systemic changes and high-reliability methods in addition to fixing the root causes of individual incidents.

Interview, focus group and survey evidence shows that middle managers are deeply committed but face increasing workloads with reduced resources, creating ‘extreme jobs’ with long hours, high intensity and fast pace. Such roles can be rewarding but carry implications for work–life balance and stress. Other pressures on middle management included rising patient and public expectations, financial challenges, burdensome regulation (external and internal), staffing problems, incompatible and dated information systems, resource and professional barriers to implementing change and problematic relationships with external agencies. Despite these pressures, management contributions included maintaining day-to-day performance, ‘firefighting’, ensuring a patient experience focus in decision-making, translating ideas into working initiatives, identifying and ‘selling’ new ideas, facilitating change, troubleshooting, leveraging targets to improve performance, process and pathway redesign, developing infrastructure (information technology, equipment, estate), developing others and managing external partnerships. Actions required to maintain an enabling environment to support those contributions would involve individual, divisional and organisational steps, most of which would be cost neutral.

Recommendations for future research concern the assessment of management capacity, the advantages and drawbacks of service-line organisation structures, the incidence and implications of extreme managerial jobs, evaluating alternative serious incident investigation methods, and the applicability of high-reliability organisation perspectives in acute care settings.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.