Cargando…

Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers

BACKGROUND: Biomedical scientists have become de facto leaders for their research teams. Theories of expert leadership suggest that the specialist knowledge and credibility these researcher-leaders bring to their roles can lead to improved performance. Formal leadership development for biomedical re...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kingsley-Smith, Harry, Short, Sarah, Kotze, Koot, Lyons, Oscar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36582944
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S386961
_version_ 1784859814301532160
author Kingsley-Smith, Harry
Short, Sarah
Kotze, Koot
Lyons, Oscar
author_facet Kingsley-Smith, Harry
Short, Sarah
Kotze, Koot
Lyons, Oscar
author_sort Kingsley-Smith, Harry
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Biomedical scientists have become de facto leaders for their research teams. Theories of expert leadership suggest that the specialist knowledge and credibility these researcher-leaders bring to their roles can lead to improved performance. Formal leadership development for biomedical researchers remains uncommon, and it is unclear whether existing leadership development programmes achieve improved individual and organisational outcomes. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of a single centre leadership development programme for biomedical researchers using a mixed-methods approach. METHODS: 26 biomedical researchers participated in an 8 month single centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre–post pairs and then–post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel mixed-methods evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: There were significant increases in 3/7 domains and 1/5 tasks of leadership in the PCQ, in both pre-post and then-post paired assessments. There were statistically significant but small increases in 2/7 domains of the MLCFQ. The mixed-methods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. Participants said the programme was relevant, interesting and well-organised, with 63% reporting increased confidence and motivation. Participants had a significant change in behaviour, spending 1–2 hours per week on group projects, which were successfully implemented locally. 42% of participants expected these projects to continue beyond the programme. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates a local leadership programme can have positive impact within a biomedical research centre despite time and financial constraints. We encourage future studies to utilise a mixed-methods approach to evaluating the impact of leadership development programmes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9793249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97932492022-12-28 Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers Kingsley-Smith, Harry Short, Sarah Kotze, Koot Lyons, Oscar Adv Med Educ Pract Short Report BACKGROUND: Biomedical scientists have become de facto leaders for their research teams. Theories of expert leadership suggest that the specialist knowledge and credibility these researcher-leaders bring to their roles can lead to improved performance. Formal leadership development for biomedical researchers remains uncommon, and it is unclear whether existing leadership development programmes achieve improved individual and organisational outcomes. Our study evaluates the effectiveness of a single centre leadership development programme for biomedical researchers using a mixed-methods approach. METHODS: 26 biomedical researchers participated in an 8 month single centre multidisciplinary leadership development programme. Participants completed prospective pre-test, retrospective then-test and traditional post-test self-assessments using the Primary Colours Questionnaire (PCQ) and Medical Leadership Competency Framework Self-Assessment Tool (MLCFQ). Pre–post pairs and then–post pairs were analysed for changes using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and compared with a parallel mixed-methods evaluation organised by Kirkpatrick levels. RESULTS: There were significant increases in 3/7 domains and 1/5 tasks of leadership in the PCQ, in both pre-post and then-post paired assessments. There were statistically significant but small increases in 2/7 domains of the MLCFQ. The mixed-methods data showed positive outcomes at all Kirkpatrick levels. Participants said the programme was relevant, interesting and well-organised, with 63% reporting increased confidence and motivation. Participants had a significant change in behaviour, spending 1–2 hours per week on group projects, which were successfully implemented locally. 42% of participants expected these projects to continue beyond the programme. DISCUSSION: This study demonstrates a local leadership programme can have positive impact within a biomedical research centre despite time and financial constraints. We encourage future studies to utilise a mixed-methods approach to evaluating the impact of leadership development programmes. Dove 2022-12-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9793249/ /pubmed/36582944 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S386961 Text en © 2022 Kingsley-Smith et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License. The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Short Report
Kingsley-Smith, Harry
Short, Sarah
Kotze, Koot
Lyons, Oscar
Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title_full Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title_fullStr Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title_full_unstemmed Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title_short Next Generation Leaders Programme: A Multi-Methods Evaluation of a Leadership Development Programme for Biomedical Researchers
title_sort next generation leaders programme: a multi-methods evaluation of a leadership development programme for biomedical researchers
topic Short Report
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9793249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36582944
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S386961
work_keys_str_mv AT kingsleysmithharry nextgenerationleadersprogrammeamultimethodsevaluationofaleadershipdevelopmentprogrammeforbiomedicalresearchers
AT shortsarah nextgenerationleadersprogrammeamultimethodsevaluationofaleadershipdevelopmentprogrammeforbiomedicalresearchers
AT kotzekoot nextgenerationleadersprogrammeamultimethodsevaluationofaleadershipdevelopmentprogrammeforbiomedicalresearchers
AT lyonsoscar nextgenerationleadersprogrammeamultimethodsevaluationofaleadershipdevelopmentprogrammeforbiomedicalresearchers