The role of the organizational champion in achieving health system change
Abstract
In healthcare there is a long held wisdom that 'champions' are a key aspect of organizational change. Drawing on organizational management theory, we examine the role of champions in three health and social care organizations in England as they attempt to move services to a remote model of delivery, 'telecare'. The delivery of remote care is a significant policy in the U.K. and elsewhere, but its introduction has been challenging. Over three years ethnographic methods (observations, informed discussions and interviews) were used to analyze the role of organizational champions in implementing remote care. Cases were local authorities and associated primary care trusts. Participants were champions and organizational members involved in implementation. Our study shows that organizational champions are highly effective in the first phase of adoption, when change is contained within distinct sub-sets of practice. Moving beyond local contexts the effectiveness of the champions varied. Identification centered on the remote care work. This identification enabled the champions to motivate others and move beyond their normally prescribed roles, contributing to innovation ideas, processes and practices. When required to shift their work organization-wide, and share ideas outside their professional culture, some champions responded with resistance, resulting in a lack of innovation spread. These results caution against allowing change to become positioned within the remit of a few indivi…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
For a leader to succeed in motivating and sustaining buy-in through an organizational change initiative, they must be trusted sources of guidance in leading others.
“for a leader to succeed in motivating and sustaining buy-in through an organizational change initiative, they must be trusted sources of guidance in leading others.”
From Organizational Change: Considering Truth and Buy-In (2022) · cites this paper as Hendy and Barlow 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 54 · Cited by 189
- Authors
- Hendy, J., & Barlow, J.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hendy, Jane
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-02
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 348-355
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012702047
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 54
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 19.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/D039614/1, EP/I029788/1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Keywords
- organizational change, health system transformation, telecare, remote care, health policy implementation, local government, primary care trusts, social and health care organizations, innovation spread, resistance to change, professional culture, organizational management theory
- MeSH terms
- Delivery of Health Care, Diffusion of Innovation, England, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Organizational Innovation, Professional Role
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review