Search results

The purpose of this article is to share the lessons learned about the role of team sponsors in action-learning teams as part of community-based health leadership development programs.

This case study uses program survey results from fellow participants, action learning coaches and team sponsors to understand the value of sponsors to the teams, the roles they most often filled and the challenges they faced as team sponsors.

The extent to which the sponsors were perceived as having contributed to the work of the action learning teams varied greatly from team to team. Most sponsors agreed that they were well informed about their role. The roles sponsors most frequently played were to provide the teams with input and support, serve as a liaison to the community and serve as a sounding board, motivator and cheerleader. The most common challenges or barriers team sponsors faced in this role were keeping engaged in the process, adjusting to the role and feeling disconnected from the program.

This work provides insights for program developers and community foundations who are interested in building the capacity for health leadership by linking community sponsors with emerging leaders engaged in an action learning experience.

This work begins to fill a gap in the literature. The role of team sponsors has been studied for single organization work teams but there is a void of understanding about the role of sponsors with multi-organizational teams working to improve health while also learning about leadership.

This study aims to describe the use of action‐learning projects in 14 regional leadership development programs called public health leadership institutes.

During the period of April through August 2009, directors of the public health leadership institutes were interviewed about the action‐learning project requirement in each of their programs. Notes from these interviews, as well as relevant program materials were reviewed and summarized.

Action‐learning projects are commonly used by the public health leadership institutes to build leadership skills. However, this component of these programs varies considerably across the institutes. Frequently mentioned challenges to using action‐learning projects include lack of time for participants to meet for project work, lack of resources available for team coaching and a perceived higher value of taking action over making time for learning by many participants.

Research shows that most people develop leadership skills from actual work experiences. Action‐learning which focuses on solving complex, real‐world challenges is a common component of leadership development programs. In this paper, the authors describe how this methodology is being carried out in public health leadership institutes and recommend ways to increase the developmental return on these work experiences in public health settings.

These public health leadership programs, partially funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reach health care practitioners in 46 states and the District of Columbia. The application of best practices from these initiatives could lead to increased understanding of how to maximize the return from experiential learning initiatives designed to promote life‐long learning.

The purpose of this research is to present evaluation findings from the National Public Health Leadership Institute (PHLI) regarding how the curriculum's learning methods work singly and together to produce outcomes for learners and their organizations.

Six months after graduation from PHLI, four recent cohorts of PHLI graduates were asked to report overall reactions to PHLI by using an online survey. The survey consisted of quantitative questions about key leadership behaviors taught in the program and the usefulness of PHLI's five learning methods as well as qualitative questions about changes in understanding, skill, practices, and outcomes.

The evaluation survey yielded a 66 percent response rate (n=133). PHLI's learning methods are interrelated and lead to such outcomes as changed leadership understanding, knowledge and skill development, increased confidence, increased self‐awareness, leadership practice changes, and organizational results. The learning project was strongly associated with development of collaborations, whereas assessment tools and coaching were most often associated with increased self‐awareness.

These preliminary findings support the idea that particular learning methods are related to specific outcomes. However, graduates often integrate information and skills from multiple methods to achieve outcomes. Future research should investigate whether the associations identified in this evaluation are present in other leadership development programs.

This is the first published evaluation that has attempted to link specific learning methods with outcomes for participants of a public health leadership development program.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting‐edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Pioneered by Professor Reg Revans, and developed worldwide since the late 1940s, action‐based learning is an educational process where people work with others to tackle relevant, real‐world issues as the way to learn and develop. This study, coupled with prior investigations, demonstrates that there is a large variation on how action learning is practiced. There are, however, some best practices that institutes employing action learning programs can follow.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that have influenced some of the world's leading organizations.

The paper provides strategic insights and practical thinking that can have a broader social impact.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy‐to‐digest format.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.