↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Leadership requirements for Lean versus servant leadership in health care: a systematic review of the literature

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Healthcare Leadership, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#16 of 124)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
378 Mendeley
Title
Leadership requirements for Lean versus servant leadership in health care: a systematic review of the literature
Published in
Journal of Healthcare Leadership, January 2017
DOI 10.2147/jhl.s120166
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kjeld Harald Aij, Sofia Rapsaniotis

Abstract

As health care organizations face pressures to improve quality and efficiency while reducing costs, leaders are adopting management techniques and tools used in manufacturing and other industries, especially Lean. Successful Lean leaders appear to use a coaching leadership style that shares underlying principles with servant leadership. There is little information about specific similarities and differences between Lean and servant leaderships. We systematically reviewed the literature on Lean leadership, servant leadership, and health care and performed a comparative analysis of attributes using Russell and Stone's leadership framework. We found significant overlap between the two leadership styles, although there were notable differences in origins, philosophy, characteristics and behaviors, and tools. We conclude that both Lean and servant leaderships are promising models that can contribute to the delivery of patient-centered, high-value care. Servant leadership may provide the means to engage and develop employees to become successful Lean leaders in health care organizations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 378 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 378 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 82 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 8%
Researcher 27 7%
Student > Bachelor 25 7%
Other 64 17%
Unknown 110 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 65 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 64 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 9%
Social Sciences 21 6%
Engineering 18 5%
Other 53 14%
Unknown 124 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2019.
All research outputs
#3,451,215
of 24,673,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#16
of 124 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,267
of 430,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Healthcare Leadership
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,673,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 430,580 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them