Examine theoretical perspectives relating to effective health and social care leadership and management skills, including team management, strategic overview and leading through change.

CYP6032 - Leading Health & Social Care in a Multi-Agency Environment

Component 1

January Cohort submission date: Before 1200 hrs on: Friday 18th July 2025

Assessment Pack contents:

Short introduction to the task.

Key terms

Key resources

Template to outline structure and content

Rubric to understand marking criteria

Video to explain it.

Short introduction to the task:

Learning outcomes:

1. Examine theoretical perspectives relating to effective health and social care leadership and management skills, including team management, strategic overview and leading through change.

2. Critically analyse the role of leaders in the health and social care workforce, particularly in relation to leadership skills and ethical awareness required for inter-agency working and lead professional responsibilities. 

Portfolio

Part 1 (1000 words)

Firstly, you are asked to identify the key policy or legislative documents you consider to be critical for leading and managing health and social care.  You will undertake an analysis of these documents, looking at what they contain, what are the key messages they are advocating, why they are important for health and social care and are there any issues with implementing them.

Part 2 (1000 words)

For the second section you need to choose a case study of a critical incident which you believe to be important for health and social care.  You are asked to evaluate this and highlight the implications and lessons that need to be learned for leadership and management.

Key terms:

Reflection

Reflexivity

Transactional

Transformational

Psychological

Leadership

Management

Theory

Justification

Evaluation

Recommendations

Key Resources:

Essential Reading

Dacre-Pool, L. & Qualter, P. (2018). An introduction to emotional intelligence. Wiley Blackwell.

Dickinson, H. & Carey, G. (2016). Managing and leading in inter-agency settings (2nd ed.) Policy Press.

Frost, N. & Robinson, M. (Eds.). (2016). Developing multi-professional teamwork for integrated children’s services (3rd ed.). Open University Press.

Iszatt-White, M. & Saunders, C. (2020). Leadership. Oxford University Press.

Northhouse, PG. (2019). Leadership: theory and practice (8th ed.). SAGE.

Prosser, S. (2018). Effective people: leadership and organisation development in healthcare. CRC Press.

Further Reading

Manangariva, S. Ward, D. Randhawa, M. Edge, R. (2018) Leadership in today’s NHS (National Health Service): Delivering the impossible. The King’s Fund & NHS Providers. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-07/Leadership_in_todays_NHS.pdf

Cooper, C. and Hesketh, I. (2017) Managing health and wellbeing in the public sector: a guide to best practice. London: Routledge.

Daft, RL. (2015) Organization theory and design. Boston: Cengage.

Department of Health and Social Care. (2018) Empowering NHS leaders to lead - Sir Ron Kerr. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sir-ron-kerr-review-empowering-nhs-leaders-to-lead

Northhouse, PG. (2015). Introduction to leadership: concepts and practice (3^rd ed.) SAGE.

Thompson, K. (2016). Strengthening child protection: sharing information in multi-agency settings. Policy Press.

Timmins, N. (2019). Leading for Integrated Care: if you think competition is hard, you should try collaboration. The King’s Fund Available from:  (https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/leading-integrated-care

Thornton, G. Mansi, V. Carramenha, B.  & Cappellano, T. (Eds). (2018). Strategic employee communication: building a culture of engagement. SAGE.

Walker, G. (2018) Working together for children: a critical introduction to multi-agency working. 2^nd (ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

Wate, R. & Boulton, N. (2015). Multi-agency safeguarding in a public protection world: a handbook for protecting children and vulnerable adults. Pavillion Publishing.

Journals

Healthcare Leadership Review

Journal of Healthcare Leadership

Journal of Leadership Studies

Leadership Excellence

Leadership in Health Services

Websites

www.kingsfund.org.uk/

www.cqc.org.uk/

www.gov.uk/

www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk

www.skilsforcare.org.uk/

www.open.ac.uk/

www.scie.org.uk/

Template:

Part 1 Guidance:

Analysis of key policy or legislative documents concerning leading and managing health and social care

For this part of the portfolio, I would like you to identify 2 policies and or legislations which you feel are important to the work stream which interests you. You will need to be able to explain the policy and comment on how it might assist Leaders/Managers in Health and Social Care. I see the piece of work being split into the following sections: -

Introduction (100 words) – Here you will say what this section of the portfolio aims to do. What are you going to do in your work?

Rationale (200 words) – Identify the 2 policy/legislative documents you have chosen and say why these are important to your area of interest/practice

Here are some policy/legislation examples, you do not have to use these, you can use any policy you feel appropriate

• Health and Care Act 2022
• Personalised Health and Care 2020
• NHS Mandate 2020-2021
• NHS Long Term Plan

Policy/ Legislation discussions: -

Policy /legislation1 - 300 words

Policy /legislation 2 - 300 words

For each one of these outlines the main points of the documents and then discuss how these concern leaders and managers – so it might be about leading the implementation, or it may be how the policy/legislation is managed locally.

Conclusion (100 words) – Here you will draw the main points together in relation to leading and managing

Part 2 Guidance:

Case study evaluation of critical incidents and implications for leadership and management

You will choose a critical incidents case study out of the choices given. Going on to say why you have chosen that case study, then evaluate it, looking at how the investigation was performed, was it ‘sound’, was everything looked at and nothing missed. You will also need to consider if the outcomes are reasonable. Finally, you will end by saying what can leaders/managers learn from the case study.

Please use the following guidance

Introduction – 100 words

Simply state in this section what your work is going to discuss.

Case Study – 600 words.

Please identify the case study, putting the copy of it in your appendix.

Give your rationale for choosing it and justify this with differing classes of evidence (see the research pyramid).

Using subheadings consider methodology which will incorporate; how the investigation was conducted; evaluation consider the process, was it conducted appropriately, was everything considered or did the investigation miss bits, move on to the outcomes - do you agree with them, do they seem reasonable.

Lessons for Leaders/Managers –200 words.

 In this section discuss what Leaders and Managers can learn from the case study and how they might implement the recommendations.

Conclusion – 100 words

Here you will draw the main points together in relation to leading and managing.

Examine theoretical perspectives relating to effective health and social care leadership and management skills, including team management, strategic overview and leading through change.

Rubric used to mark:

85-100%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Exceptional comprehension of the implications of the question and critical understanding of the theoretical and methodological issues for this level
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and exceptionally sophisticated usage.

Argument

• A critical, analytical and sophisticated argument that is logically structured and well-supported
• Evidence of independent thought and ability to ‘see beyond the question’
• Evidence of reading widely beyond the prescribed reading list and creative use of evidence to enhance the overall argument; demonstrates the ability to synthesise appropriate principles by reference, where appropriate, to primary sources and knowledge at the forefront of the discipline

Presentation

• Extremely well presented: no grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style; exemplary referencing and bibliographic formatting.

75%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Excellent knowledge and understanding of the subject and understanding of theoretical & methodological issues
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: accurate and sophisticated usage

Argument

• A coherent argument that is logically structured and supported by evidence
• Demonstrates a capacity for intellectual initiative/ independent thought and an ability to engage with the material critically
• Use of appropriate material from a range of sources extending beyond the reading list

Presentation

• High quality organisation and style of presentation (including referencing); minimal grammatical or spelling errors; written in a fluent and engaging style.

62, 65, 68%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Very good knowledge and understanding of the subject and displays awareness of underlying theoretical and methodological issues
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: attempts use, but occasionally without full understanding or success

Argument

• A generally critical, analytical argument that is reasonably well structured and well-supported
• Some critical capacity to see the implications of the question, though not able to ‘see beyond the question’ enough to develop an independent approach
• Some critical knowledge of relevant literature; use of works beyond the prescribed reading list; demonstrating some ability to be selective in the range of material used and to synthesise rather than describe

Presentation

• Well presented: no significant grammatical or spelling errors; written clearly and concisely; largely consistent referencing and bibliographic formatting.

52, 55, 58%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Good comprehension of the subject, though there may be some errors and/or gaps, and some awareness of underlying theoretical/methodological issues with little understanding of how they relate to the question
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: limited, perhaps attempted, but not always successful usage

Argument

• Capacity for argument is limited with a tendency to assert/state opinion rather than argue on the basis of reason and evidence; structure may not be evident
• Tendency to be descriptive rather than critical, but some attempt at analysis
• Some attempt to go beyond or criticise the ‘essential reading’ for the unit; displaying limited capacity to discern between relevant and non-relevant material

Presentation

• Adequately presented: writing style conveys meaning but is sometimes awkward; some significant grammatical and spelling errors; inconsistent referencing but generally accurate bibliography.

42, 45, 48%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Limited and/or basic knowledge and understanding with significant errors and omissions and generally ignorant or confused awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: little and/or inaccurate usage

Argument

• Largely misses the point of the question, asserts rather than argues a case; underdeveloped or chaotic structure; evidence mentioned but used inappropriately or incorrectly
• Very little attempt at analysis or synthesis, tending towards excessive description.
• Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a narrow range of sources

Presentation

• Satisfactorily presented: but not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors; limited attempt at providing references (e.g., only referencing direct quotations) and containing bibliographic omissions.

32, 35, 38%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Shows very limited understanding and knowledge of the subject and/or misses the point of the question
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: no usage, or misunderstood

Argument

• Incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly.
• Unsatisfactory analytical skills
• Limited, uncritical,, and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources.

Presentation

• Unsatisfactory presentation e.g., not always easy to follow; frequent grammatical and spelling errors and limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.

0, 10, 20, 25%

Knowledge and Understanding

• Shows little or no knowledge and understanding of the subject, no awareness of key theoretical/ methodological issues and/or fails to address the question
• Technical vocabulary, where appropriate: no usage, or fundamentally misunderstood

Argument

• Unsuccessful or no attempt to construct an argument and an incoherent or illogical structure; evidence used inappropriately or incorrectly
• Very poor analytical skills
• Limited, uncritical and generally confused account of a very narrow range of sources

Presentation

• Very poor quality of presentation and limited or no attempt at providing references and containing bibliographic omissions.