Aim(s): To understand how nurses experience their positioning amidst hospital crises. Background: Nursing leadership literature is predominantly focused on the skills and competencies of nurses and less on the relations in practice with nurses. Nurses are often valued for bedside care but are overlooked in strategic decision-making during crises. Foundational research emphasizes the need for nurses’ equal participation in interprofessional healthcare practices and governance. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interpretive interview and focus group study, amidst the COVID-19 crisis. We interviewed 64 chairs of nurse councils and deepened our understanding of our initial findings in four focus groups with 34 participants. Results: Nurses differ widely on (a) what is important to them in crisis management, (b) how they can contribute to crisis management, and (c) how they value their involvement or lack of it. Furthermore, we uncovered three relational leadership struggles for nurses concerning (1) navigating, (2) positioning, and (3) collaborating, in crisis management structures. Conclusion: The ailing positioning and representation of nurses in crisis management result from their limited participation in strategic decision-making, and the lack of intervention on this by board members, physicians, and managers. Implications for Nursing Management: This study highlights the need for agents such as board members, managers, physicians, and nurses themselves to create clear frameworks and policies that define nurses’ roles in crisis situations, emphasizing the importance of addressing power dynamics and enhancing communication and collaboration in hospital settings. Effective crisis management requires involving nurses from the start, providing regular training, and promoting a more equal approach to teamwork. Understanding relational leadership and its impact during crises can empower nurses and improve overall hospital crisis response.
LINK
The decision-making process in boardrooms has a significant impact on organizational performance. In the last two decades, scientific research on the decision-making process in boardrooms has increased. This resulted in a substantial body of knowledge about boardroom factors and their relation to organizational performance. However, the effectiveness of the decision-making process in boardrooms is still mainly a black box. Amongst other things, scientific findings seem to contradict each other, which could mean additional insights are still missing. This research aims to contribute to a better understanding of this black box.
DOCUMENT
In the current discourses on sustainable development, one can discern two main intellectual cultures: an analytic one focusing on measuring problems and prioritizing measures, (Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Mass Flow Analysis (MFA), etc.) and; a policy/management one, focusing on long term change, change incentives, and stakeholder management (Transitions/niches, Environmental economy, Cleaner production). These cultures do not often interact and interactions are often negative. However, both cultures are required to work towards sustainability solutions: problems should be thoroughly identified and quantified, options for large change should be guideposts for action, and incentives should be created, stakeholders should be enabled to participate and their values and interests should be included in the change process. The paper deals especially with engineering education. Successful technological change processes should be supported by engineers who have acquired strategic competences. An important barrier towards training academics with these competences is the strong disciplinarism of higher education. Raising engineering students in strong disciplinary paradigms is probably responsible for their diminishing public engagement over the course of their studies. Strategic competences are crucial to keep students engaged and train them to implement long term sustainable solutions.
DOCUMENT
