Leadership Behaviour Framework

For coding the data about leadership behaviours, the appropriate approach was less self-evident, and raised some methodological options for the researcher. Extensive consideration was given to the relative merits of different approaches to categorising these data.

One possible approach involved analysing the data on leadership behaviours without any particular explicit frame of reference (although it should be acknowledged that the researcher is likely to hold some kind of implicit frame of reference, from his or her own understanding of the topic). This might be considered a ‘grounded’ approach (Glaser & Strauss 1967), whereby the researcher examines the data with an open mind and organises it into categories on a blank sheet of paper, retaining a willingness to consider new ideas and connections emerging from the data which had previously not been evident. A benefit of this approach is that it is purely data-led, and that it is arguably more immune to influences of bias in coding processes. Significant drawbacks of the approach are that is extremely time-consuming, and that the coding frame which emerges has no evidence base beyond the data generated by the study.

An alternative to this would be to use a pre-ordained frame of reference for coding the data; in this study, this would be a framework of leadership behaviours. Critique of such an approach may suggest that this pre-determines how the data will be categorised, and forces the data into meanings which are based on the existing frame of reference, rather than allowing possible new meanings and connections to emerge. On the other hand, this approach has obvious pragmatic advantages in terms of time and resources. In addition, a strength of the approach is that existing frameworks are likely to have a basis of literature and evidence behind them, which could enhance their perceived validity, and lend credence to the coding process.

In weighing up the options, the researcher was cogniscent of several possible leadership frameworks already in existence and in use in the NHS. The researcher had been involved in mapping and comparing these as part of other work, and it was

deemed unlikely that this study would uncover any significantly different types of leadership behaviour from those identified by extensive previous research in the field. Mouradian & Huebner (2007) found considerable ‘overlap’ between existing leadership competency frameworks and those that are newly-devised for specific leadership contexts. It was therefore decided to adopt an existing frame of reference for leadership behaviours as a basis for analysing the interview data.

Several leadership behaviour frameworks have been developed for use in the NHS over recent years. An indication of the range of frameworks available specifically for the NHS is given in Appendix 12. Whilst some of these have been developed since this study was undertaken, and the Leadership Qualities Framework has subsequently been superceded by an updated version, the purpose of Appendix 12 is to illustrate, at the time of the study, how strongly the NHS recommended use of the LQF as a ‘framework of choice within the NHS’ (online source, NHS Institute 2011b).

The LQF, illustrated in Figure 5, consisted of 15 leadership qualities organised into three clusters - Personal Qualities, Setting Direction and Delivering the Service. Each quality was broken down into a number of competencies describing the attitudes and behaviours required of effective leaders at any level of the service. Effectiveness in each of these competency areas was indicated by levels, with the highest level describing optimal leadership performance.

Figure 5. NHS Leadership Qualities Framework

The framework could be used in a number of ways, including coaching, team development, recruitment and selection and organisation development. It formed the basis for setting leadership standards in the NHS, assessing and developing leadership performance, 360 degree individual assessment and benchmarking of leadership capacity and capability (NHS Leadership Centre 2011).For this reason, the researcher gave the LQF serious consideration as the framework for analysis of the leadership data.

The LQF appeared to have wide-ranging support in the NHS (Bolden 2006). Its resource-intensive promotion by the former NHS Modernisation Agency and latterly by the NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement went some way to explaining the apparently unquestioning adoption of the LQF by NHS organisations at all levels and for diverse purposes. It is of note that the introduction of the LQF was part of the era of high investment between 2002–2008, and was part of a wide range of tools commissioned by an NHS seeking pragmatic, accessible and quick solutions to endemic cultural and quality-related issues. Among the few commentators offering robust critique of the LQF, Bolden et al (ibid) challenge the premise on which any competency framework is based, suggesting that such frameworks are ‘conceptually and methodologically flawed to be of much benefit on their own’ (p.24). They call for an approach to understanding leadership which is less focused on prescriptive, reductionist competencies of individual staff, and instead concentrating on the social and relational nature of the collective leadership process. Specific criticism of the LQF highlights that it was devised from interviews and focus groups with NHS Chief Executives and Directors, and yet was intended to be used with staff at all levels of organisations. Its roots in hierarchical and positional leadership roles were arguably in tension with its purported relevance to leaders at other levels in the NHS. The methodology used, whereby the framework was developed on the basis of self- reported behaviours, without any third-party perceptions of leadership effectiveness, is also highlighted as a weakness in terms of the framework’s validity.

As a potential coding framework for this study, the LQF benefitted from widespread usage and a high degree of recognition amongst potential respondents, the wider NHS

community and the Health Foundation. However, aspects of the LQF were somewhat problematic for the purposes of analysing the SSI data.

To illustrate, Figure 6 shows the descriptors for the section entitled Collaborative Working. Some of the descriptors combined more than one behaviour, e.g. ‘maintains positive expectations’ was combined with ‘creates the conditions for successful partnership’ into one behavioural descriptor. This type of conflation, which occurred frequently throughout the LQF, would be potentially unhelpful when attempting to code interview data against a single behaviour category.

In addition, the LQF behavioural descriptors were broad and general, lacking the specificity that would aid accurate data coding. In the case of a leader who ‘creates the conditions for successful partnership’, what sort of reported behaviour would warrant this descriptor? What does a leader actually do to demonstrate that they are creating such conditions? A drawback of the LQF for coding purposes was that it did not break down broad skills areas into specifics. As noted by Applied Research (2008), this is a ‘looseness of definition’, insufficiently focusing on the actions of leaders:

‘One potential problem with such frameworks is that they fail to clearly distinguish the capability of leaders (i.e. their competencies) from what leaders actually do (i.e. their roles).’ (p.5)

More specific descriptors of action-based behaviours rather than skills-based competencies would support more accurate data coding for the purposes of this study. Finally, the distinction between the different behavioural levels of 0-3, whilst fulfilling a key purpose of LQF, introduced the additional dimensions of relative seniority and

differential performance, which were not relevant to this study. For these reasons, an alternative leadership framework was sought.

LEVELS