Leadership and emotional intelligence in nursing and midwifery education and practice: a discussion paper

Aim
A discussion of the concepts of leadership and emotional intelligence in nursing and midwifery education and practice.

Background
The need for emotionally intelligent leadership in the health professions is acknowledged internationally throughout the nursing and midwifery literature. The concepts of emotional intelligence and emotional-social intelligence have emerged as important factors for effective leadership in the healthcare professions and require further exploration and discussion. This paper will explore these concepts and discuss their importance in the healthcare setting with reference to current practices in the UK, Ireland and internationally.

Design
Discussion paper.

Data sources
A search of published evidence from 1990–2015 using key words (as outlined below) was undertaken from which relevant sources were selected to build an informed discussion.

Implications for nursing/midwifery
Fostering emotionally intelligent leadership in nursing and midwifery supports the provision of high quality and compassionate care. Globally, leadership has important implications for all stakeholders in the healthcare professions with responsibility for maintaining high standards of care. This includes all grades of nurses and midwives, students entering the professions, managerial staff, academics and policy makers.

Conclusion
This paper discusses the conceptual models of leadership and emotional intelligence and demonstrates an important link between the two. Further robust studies are required for ongoing evaluation of the different models of emotional intelligence and their link with effective leadership behaviour in the healthcare field internationally. This is of particular significance for professional undergraduate education to promote ongoing compassionate, safe and high quality standards of care.

Responsibility and Well-Being: Resource Integration Under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift of functions and risks from providers and producers to consumers, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). As responsibilization is often considered synonymous with consumer agency and well-being, the authors take a transformative service research perspective and draw on resource integration literature to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. The authors focus on expert services, for which responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, they develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider, and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration, and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation, and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. The findings have important implications for health care providers, public and institutional policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Responsibility and Well-being: Resource Integration under Responsibilization in Expert Services

Responsibilization, or the shift in functions and risks from providers and producers to the consumer, has become an increasingly common policy in service systems and marketplaces (e.g., financial, health, governmental). Responsibilization is often presented as synonymous with consumer agency and well-being. We take a transformative service research perspective and utilize the resource integration framework to investigate whether responsibilization is truly associated with well-being. We focus on expert services, where responsibilization concerns are particularly salient, and question whether this expanding policy is in the public interest. In the process, we develop a conceptualization of resource integration under responsibilization that includes three levels of actors (consumer, provider and service system), the identification of structural tensions to resource integration and three categories of resource integration practices (access, appropriation and management) necessary to negotiate responsibilization. Our findings have important implications for health care providers, public policy makers, and other service systems, all of which must pay more active attention to the challenges consumers face in negotiating responsibilization and the resulting well-being outcomes.

Planning for the Unseen and Unheard: the child with ASD

“Children are a kind of indicator species.
If we can build a successful city for children,
we will have a successful city for all people.”

Enrique Peñalosa (former mayor of Bogotá)

Should society be judged by how they treat their weakest members, the concept of the Child Friendly City offers more than ample scope for critiquing the genuine health and inclusivity of our urban environments. If we accept childhood as a crucial human development phase that demands inclusive and welcoming places for play, exploration and growth, many cities today are becoming increasingly barren habitats, arguably full of nothing but empty childhoods. (Raven-Ellison 2015) With children today less able to roam and explore our streets than those of yesteryear, (Bird 2007) the situation is now developing where our young are becoming increasingly socially and spatially excluded from our supposedly shared Built Environment. That progressively restrictive urban realm is particularly pronounced for those with Autism Spectrum Disorder, for whom our cities can be disorientating, difficult and even frightening places.

As a profession we have a responsibility to provide inclusive built environments that do not preclude the presence of the most vulnerable in society, among them those with ASD. Accordingly this paper seeks to introduce emerging research into the current challenges facing these young urban stakeholders before discussing how planning processes and design interventions might make our cities more accessible to those with ASD.

References:

Bird, W. (2007) Natural Thinking, Sandy, Bedfordshire: RSPB.

Raven-Ellison, D. (2015) “London’s Empty Childhoods” in London Essays – Green Spaces, Issue 3 – found at: http://essays.centreforlondon.org/issues/green/londons-empty-childhoods/ accessed 9th May 2016.