A special kind of organization, and three old maps of leadership

As medical technique has risen, and as well-being has been more widely valued, demand for health institutions and for the people who work in them is described as rising too. In Korea, after a stretch of rapid economic growth, interest has shifted from living a long life to how that life is lived, and to its quality. In that setting, the efficiency and competitiveness of health organizations are treated as something that has to rise as well.

Leadership has long been a subject in ordinary management, and more recently the discussion has spread to special organizations such as the military and health care. Many studies of a leader’s power have already been done, but most of them were written with private firms in mind. A health organization, and the jobs inside it, are treated as a poor fit for those lessons if they are applied as they stand. Work, limits, and responsibility are clearly divided: a doctor operates, diagnoses, and prescribes; a nurse supports surgery and follow-up treatment; a physical therapist handles rehabilitation and training. Leadership in such a place has to be studied on its own terms.

A common definition, drawn in part from a 2002 compilation by Orna, is that one person in an organization exercises influence or power over others. Fleishman, in that discussion, stresses communication in the process; Koontz and O’Donnell stress that the following should be voluntary. Trait theory, an early map, holds that a person’s traits decide leadership. Behavior theory, as set out in Lee Seong-sik’s 2005 work, holds that what matters is not personality but how the person acts, and what that action does to others, so the object of study should be behavior. Situation theory holds that a leader’s traits and actions are heavily shaped by the situation; the main situational variables named here are the relationship between leader and members, how far the task is structured, and the leader’s influence and authority.

What the 2011 to 2014 Korean studies found

Job satisfaction and the degree of absorption in the work are described as organizational effectiveness: a rise in productivity and efficiency that, in a health organization, means a higher quality of service. Organizational commitment is the will of members to take a common goal as their own, to work toward it, and to sacrifice for it.

A number of earlier studies have tried to tie leadership to that effectiveness. Hwang Ok-hui, in 2013, surveyed care workers in elderly medical-welfare facilities. The satisfaction of those workers with the job and with their rewards did not show evidence that a manager’s leadership was linked to the quality of service. That result is read as some support for situation theory: leadership draws different outcomes depending on the satisfaction members already held.

Kim Hwa-jin, in 2014, studied an empowering style of leadership in regional health institutions in Hwaseong. Self-determination and influence, as sub-factors of that style, were found to have a positive relationship with members’ job satisfaction. Kim Ho-seon’s 2013 work in regional health institutions came to a similar close, and is set beside behavior theory: considerate action toward members, in that theory, has a positive effect, in the same vein as a servant leader who supports and cares for the people in the organization. Together with Jin Jong-sun, also in 2013, Kim looked at a director’s servant leadership and organizational effectiveness in regional health institutions. That leadership was found to motivate members and to be tied to high trust in commitment and in values toward the organization.

Transformational leadership is described as a process in which a leader does not simply reward performance, but motivates at a higher level. Park Jin-hui and Jang Yun-jeong, in 2014, used that style to look at turnover intention, itself a window on how much commitment and involvement members feel. Kim Dae-won, in 2011, looked at the effect of the same kind of leadership on the quality of medical services, and found a positive effect on nurses’ motivation in health institutions.

Handing power over, rather than forcing a result

In the medical work a person actually does, a leader who produces organizational results by high power or by coercion is treated as less effective than a leader who draws people to offer a high level of care voluntarily, out of their own competence. That, in a health organization, is named as a highly effective form.

A recent side of organizational culture is also named as a cost: high stress among members, and a fall in commitment and in job satisfaction. The close is that a leader should use the power they hold by handing it over to the members, and that widening this kind of leadership is how health organizations might reach both a strong performance and a high level of service. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.

Sources

1. Orna, compilation of definitions of leadership, 2002; Lee Seong-sik, 2005; Jeong Min-su, Lee Bo-hye, and Choi Man-gyu, 2009; Hwang Ok-hwa, Journal of the Korean Society of Industrial and Management Systems 32, no. 3, 2013; Lee Song-mi, 2006.
2. Hwang Ok-hui, study of leadership among care workers in elderly medical-welfare facilities, 2013; Kim Ho-seon and Jin Jong-sun, “The Effect of Servant Leadership and Empowerment on Organizational Effectiveness: With a Focus on Regional Health Institutions,” 2013; Kim Hwa-jin, study of empowering leadership in regional health institutions in Hwaseong, 2014; Park Jin-hui and Jang Yun-jeong, transformational leadership and turnover intention, 2014; Kim Dae-won, transformational leadership and nurses’ motivation, 2011.

Last updated: 14 November 2026