Leadership and Health Policy Development

Introduction

The legislative structure and policy implementation on smoking ban is one of the effective ways to support the community health and social care management in the UK, where the major aim of the policy is to maximise the standard of living of the individuals in the society. It is an effective health policy, where the priorities are to maximise the wellbeing, mitigate the impacts of smoking on children and adults as well as well as reduce the chance of air pollution in long run (Mlinarić et al., 2019). The study focuses on discussing the policy implementation, where it would be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy documentation and implementation. The paper is also fruitful to identify the stakeholders, engaged with the policy through stakeholder’s analysis as well as apply the Tuckman’s team development and ladder of participation theory for successful implementation of the policy in practice. Through this study, it is also effective to discuss the leadership practice through which the policy implementation and leading the participations towards achieving the future success would be possible in long run. The policy is mainly related to mitigating the impacts of smoking in the society, where the policy of smoking ban would be fruitful for the whole society. The chosen policy is for child safety as well as mitigating the passive impacts of smoking, which is dangerous for the society. Smoking ban in the public place is the national policy of the UK, which has been implemented in the national and sub national level with effective cooperation of the concerned citizens, private sector groups, community-based organizations (CBOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), faith-based groups and the media, who are playing an important role to implement and executive the policy to maximise the standard of living of the individuals as a whole, making healthcare dissertation help particularly relevant for analysing and improving such policies.

Background of the policy

According to WHO or World Health Organisation, there are more than 6 million individuals, died every year because of tobacco related diseases, and it is expected to rise up to 8 million by 2030. Tobacco use is one of the biggest health threats, which may kill the individual in every 6 seconds and it has diverse impacts on the health condition of the individuals. For public health implications, the policy is mandatory to be executed effectively in the UK in order to reduce the death rate due to tobacco use (Mlinarić et al., 2019). There are also significant differences between the smoking and non-smoking person in the economy for the taxation of the government and high consumption of tobacco may increase the death rate in the country at high rate. Hereby, it is mandatory for the government and the public authority to implement the policy of tobacco ban in the public spaces, so that the citizens participate and control the consumption of tobacco for the benefits of the society as a whole (Zhou et al., 2016). There are different rules and legislations for smoking ban, prohibition of the advertisement of the cigarettes, laws of necessities the placement of health warning and pictures on tobacco product packages, laws prohibition the use of tobacco in the public places, inhale with children, tax increased in using tobacco and these are the major legislative structure through which it is possible to reduce the use of tobacco. In order to protect the public from the harmful effects, and it is helpful to reduce tobacco related deaths (Mlinarić et al., 2019). The policy content of the smoking ban policy is mandatory to be implemented successfully and in this regard, the regulations are such as,

Smoke-free (Premises and Enforcement) Regulations 2006

Smoke-free (Penalties and Discounted Amounts) Regulations 2007

Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2006

Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007

The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations 2012

Health Act 2006

Smoke-free (Vehicle Operators and Penalty Notices) Regulations 2007

The Smoke-free (Private Vehicles) Regulations 2015

These regulations are effective to protest against smoking and ban the use of tobacco, and mitigate the tobacco related diseases. The policy context is hereby beneficial, where WHO, NGOs as well as the citizens are collaborating with each other for better practice and management in the society (Mavrot, 2017). The pollution as well as the adverse impacts smoking on children as well as adults is also controlled through such policy implementation. The UK department of health as well as the WHO are efficient to provide fund for implementing the policy to ban smoking in the public places. The citizens of the UK are also cooperating and they support the policy to ban tobacco use and smoking and thus through increasing collaboration and supporting from the NGOs, business entrepreneurs and citizens, it is possible to implement the policies and improve the standard of living of the individuals.

Smoking in the public places such as buses, trains, cinemas, theatres and public houses as well as restaurants in the UK has been allowed during 1960s and 1970s and there were adverse health impacts on the children and adults as well as the old age people and in this regard the passive smoking is one of the major issue for which the individuals may suffer from several health issues (Nguyen & Bornstein, 2020). During 1980s, the health professionals of the UK as well as NHS and other health association imposed the policy for voluntary and partial smoking bans. There are adverse health impacts of smoking and it mainly increases coronary heart disease by more than 30% for which the individuals are suffering. The UK department of health also published white paper, where the aim of the policy is to develop smoke free society for maximising the standard of living. There are ethical rules which are also effective for implementing the policy such as Health and social care act, Human Rights Act as well as Freedom to Choose campaign which raise concern among the citizens to stop smoking in order to stay healthy and lead a normal and healthy life further (Nguyen & Bornstein, 2020).

Tuckman’s team development

Tuckman’s team development is effective model to understand the practice of developing a good team, where it is possible for the authority or the leader to increase team work and increase cooperation of the members in achieving the aim. The policy of smoking ban is effective in the UK in order to protect the individual life and maximises the standard of living. In this regard, as per the Tuckman’s team development, there are five stages, through which the team developmental activities can be managed well. The five stages are such as forming, storming, and norming, performing and adjourning.

Figure 1: Tuckman’s team development

As per forming, the participants must understand the purpose and the leader must guide and direct the followers for achieving the future success. Through forming, it is mandatory for the authority and health department of the UK to guide and direct the citizens towards implementing the policy to ban tobacco use in the society and before that, it is possible to raise concern among them and let them understand the actual purpose of the policy (Zhou et al., 2016). Storming is the next stage, where there may raise internal conflicts and also there is power struggle and coaching during this stage, there may have some citizens who do not accept the changes through the policy and raising internal conflicts may lead to misunderstanding among them. However, the leader must provide coaching and improve understanding so that the citizens can acknowledge the aim of the policy and cooperate with the UK health departments. The norming stage is effective, where the leader can lead the citizens as well as create roles and responsibilities in the society (Luís & Palma-Oliveira, 2016). The citizens also must play an important role in implementing the policy and improve the social structure and legislation so that the public health can be maximised in long run. Performing is the next stage as per the Tuckman’s team development, in which, clear goals and objectives are shared with the citizens and the leader is efficient to focus on the goal for successful achievement through policy implications.

Adjourning is the last stage for team development, where task completion and recognition are effective for achieving the policy aim. It is hereby beneficial for the UK health department to implement the Tuckman’s team development in order to develop a good teamwork in the society, so that the WHO, NHS, local health care authority, the department of UK health and NGOs are cooperating with each other for implementing the policy of smoking ban in the UK. The citizens in this regard play a crucial role, in order to maintain dignity and implement the policy in practice (Luís & Palma-Oliveira, 2016). The legislations and rules must be implemented with the help and continuous support of the citizens and in this regard the team development activities are beneficial to lead the citizens and create values for them, improve communication and cooperation with the citizens, share the policy aim and the purpose of the changes in the society as well as empower the citizens in the policy implications with clear roles and responsibilities which are contributing in executing the above mentioned policies and practices in the society. Continuous support and communication with the citizens as well as leading them with direction are effective to encourage their participation and they are also informed with all the adequate information related to the policy implications which are also beneficial for the UK health department to implement the policy and create a safer world for future generation.

Ladder of participation theory

The ladder of participation is another major theory which is effective to cooperate with the citizens and help them to implement the above mentioned policy and practice in the society. As per the theory of ladder of participation, there are three stages which are non-participation, degree of tokenism and degree of citizen power. In the non-participation stage, the citizens are not able to understand the policy implications at the initial stage, and there are internal conflicts among the team members and the citizens to adopt the new changes in the society. In this regard, manipulation and therapy is the major activities through which it is possible to raise concern among the citizens. The individuals can understand the policy aim where the leader and the health department of the UK must manipulate the citizens with social campaign against smoking as well as sharing the information about the adverse impacts of smoking. There are several diseases related to smoking and the coronary heart attack is one of the major diseases as well as lung cancer is also serious diseases related to smoking. Hence, the information related to smoking with effective statistics must be shared with the citizens so that public awareness can be raised.

Figure 2: Ladder of participation theory

After that, the degree of tokenism is the second stage, where placation, consultation and informing are mandatory and in this regard, the health authority must focus on informing all the citizens about the policy and sharing the views related to the advantages of the policy in the society. This further rise awareness among the citizens and encourage the individuals in the UK to take active part in the society and help the health department to implement the policy of smoking ban (Magor‐Blatch & Rugendyke, 2016). This is advantageous for the social communities as a whole, where the issue of passive smoking can also be mitigated in the society. In the final stage of degree of citizen power, as per the leader of participation theory, there are the effective activities including delegated power, citizen control and partnership and these are beneficial for successful policy implementation. Partnership working practice is one of the major ways to control the citizens and cooperate with them for executing the above mentioned policy in practice (Levy et al., 2018). The health care authority and the NHS are working collaboratively and they try to empower the citizens of the UK to motivate them and give them the chance of participating in the practice of policy implementation related to smoking ban. The citizens are also able to understand the aim of the policy and they are encouraged with high communication, public incentives and freedom to stay healthy in the society, and these facilities further lead them towards achieving the future success of policy implementation in the society.

Leadership

Leadership is important in this regard in order to lead the followers and include all the stakeholders for managing the functions of the policies and implementing it successfully (Monson & Arsenault, 2017). The major functions of leadership in implementing the policies and practice to ban smoking in the society are such as,

Establishing clear roles and responsibility of the citizens

Creating vision behind the policy

Developing the strategy to change

Aligning the individuals in the society to adopt the policy change and response with cooperation

Communicating with all the stakeholders

Ensuring continuous motivation and inspiration to the citizens

Developing positive environment to adopt the policy and act responsibly in the society

These are the major functions of leadership in implementing the above mentioned policy, so that the citizen can act responsibly and contribute efficiently for better and after world by banning smoking in the society (Woodall & Tattersfield, 2018). On the other hand, leadership traits are also necessary to be evaluated however in order to identify the skills of leadership so that the health department of the UK can lead the followers towards achieving the policy success. The major traits of the leadership are such as,

Strong drive of responsibility, where the leader is responsible to lead the team members including the NGOs, health authorities in the UK, NHS and other health care professionals to implement the policy successfully.

Ability to influence others in the society is another crucial trait of leadership, where the individuals are influence to act responsibly and maintain the rules of the government in the UK. Being a corporate citizen, it is also necessary for the citizens to collaborate with the health care department regarding the ban of smoking.

Sense of personal identity and self confidence are the leadership trait, where the leader is able to lead the followers and share all the necessary rules under the ban of smoking in the society. The personal skill such as communication, cooperative skill, knowledge and own abilities to lead the followers are helpful in this regard to strategise the policy implementation phase and lead the citizens towards achieving future success (de Andrade & Kinner, 2017).

Ability to tolerate frustration and consequences is also another leadership trait, where the leader is able to make effective decision in the society to influence the actions of the citizens and cooperate with them continuously. The leader is also efficient to utilise the decision making skill as well as problem solving skill in order to manage the internal conflicts and convince the stakeholders to adopt changes for the benefits of the society as a whole. In this practice, the transformational leadership is effective for the successful implementation of the policy, where the leader of the UK is also able to manage the citizens and convince them to act responsibly as the aim of the policy is to maximise the wellbeing of the individuals in the social communities and create a safer world in long run (Kelly et al., 2018). As per the transformational leadership, the leader focuses on enhancing communication and cooperation with the followers. Additionally, continuous motivation and individualised encouragement are there which further boosts the interest of the citizens to take active part in the policy implementation phase. The leader tries to focus on creating vision and share all the information related to the policy so that it would be possible to encourage the citizens and influence them to adopt the new changes and contribute responsibly for mitigating the negative impacts of smoking in the society (Sandoval et al., 2018). In this regard, the major leadership skills that are mandatory for successful policy implementation are such as people management skill, communication, cooperative skill, team developmental skill, persuasion and influencing skills as well as change management and innovation skills.

Stakeholder’s analysis

Walt and Gilson triangle is important to evaluate the policy implications and in this regard, the theory is helpful to identify the actors, related to the policy. It is important to identify the stakeholders, who are engaged with the policy implementation phase for the betterment of the society as a whole. The main objective of the policy is to deter the consumption of tobacco, minimise the early death in UK and prevalence of smoking related ailments. Through the above mentioned legislations and policy implications, it is possible to reduce the death rate and improve the wellbeing of the individuals in the society by the initiate of smoking ban (Frazer et al., 2016). The WHO sets the standard and develops the framework for implementing the policy against consumption of tobacco and the UK government cooperates with WHO to maintain the health care standard and create safer work in future. Hence, the WHO and the UK government are the major stakeholders or the leader of the policy of smoking ban. The major participants in this policy is the citizens of the UK, medical professionals and local councils, as well as the owners of licensed premises, private sectors in the UK, environmental officers, the police and media (Hajdu & Hajdu, 2018).

All the stakeholders are contributing efficiently and they are collaborating with each other for successful implementation of the policy, so that the purpose of the policy can be achieved in long run. Hence, the organisation and health department are engaged with the policy as well as there are other organisation such as WHO and NHS, government of the UK and general public who contribute in implementing the policy of banning smoking in the society. Additionally, as per the Walt and Gilson triangle, the context of the policy is to develop the culture of smoking ban, create situational analysis of fruitful impacts of smoking ban in the society, where the individual can create a safer world in future. The content is another factor as per the Walt and Gilson triangle and in this regard the policy objective is determined which is to reduce the death rate and save the future generation from the harmful impacts of smoking. The third factor is process which is dealing with the actions and the strategies to implement the policy, where all the stakeholders are encouraged and they try to contribute positively to implement the policy.

Conclusion

The major purpose of the policy of smoking ban is to discourage smoking, as well as minimise the prevalence of tobacco smoking related diseases and sudden deaths among both smokers and non-smokers, including the adults and children, due to passive impacts of smoking in the society. the legislative structure is effective where all the stakeholders including the UK government, NHS and WHO, medical professionals, media and police and citizens are acting responsibly to implement the policy an create safer world. The leadership style through communication and cooperation as well as continuous motivation are also helpful to lead the followers and encourage the stakeholders to take active initiatives for executing the policy to protect wellbeing of the individuals in the social communities.

Continue your exploration of Key Public Health Issues with our related content.

References

de Andrade, D., & Kinner, S. A. (2017). Systematic review of health and behavioural outcomes of smoking cessation interventions in prisons. Tobacco control, 26(5), 495-501.

Frazer, K., McHugh, J., Callinan, J. E., & Kelleher, C. (2016). Impact of institutional smoking bans on reducing harms and secondhand smoke exposure. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5).

Hajdu, T., & Hajdu, G. (2018). Smoking ban and health at birth: Evidence from Hungary. Economics & Human Biology, 30, 37-47.

Kelly, B. C., Vuolo, M., Frizzell, L. C., & Hernandez, E. M. (2018). Denormalization, smoke-free air policy, and tobacco use among young adults. Social Science & Medicine, 211, 70-77.

Levy, D. T., Tam, J., Kuo, C., Fong, G. T., & Chaloupka, F. (2018). Research full report: the impact of implementing tobacco control policies: the 2017 tobacco control policy scorecard. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(5), 448.

Luís, S., & Palma-Oliveira, J. (2016). Public policy and social norms: The case of a nationwide smoking ban among college students. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 22(1), 22.

Magor‐Blatch, L. E., & Rugendyke, A. R. (2016). Going smoke‐free: attitudes of mental health professionals to policy change. Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing, 23(5), 290-302.

Mavrot, C. (2017). Concerted horizontal policy transfer: How local action can drive national compliance to international norms. In Public Policy Transfer. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Mlinarić, M., Hoffmann, L., Kunst, A. E., Schreuders, M., Willemsen, M. C., Moor, I., & Richter, M. (2019). Explaining mechanisms that influence smoke-free implementation at the local level: a realist review of smoking bans. Nicotine and Tobacco Research, 21(12), 1609-1620.

Monson, E., & Arsenault, N. (2017). Effects of enactment of legislative (public) smoking bans on voluntary home smoking restrictions: a review. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 19(2), 141-148.

Nguyen, H. V., & Bornstein, S. (2020). Changes in adults’ vaping and smoking behaviours associated with aerosol-free laws. Tobacco Control.

Sandoval, J. L., Leão, T., Cullati, S., Theler, J. M., Joost, S., Humair, J. P., ... & Guessous, I. (2018). Public smoking ban and socioeconomic inequalities in smoking prevalence and cessation: a cross-sectional population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland (1995–2014). Tobacco control, 27(6), 663-669.

Woodall, J., & Tattersfield, A. (2018). Perspectives on implementing smoke-free prison policies in England and Wales. Health Promotion International, 33(6), 1066-1073.

Zhou, L., Niu, L., Jiang, H., Jiang, C., & Xiao, S. (2016). Facilitators and barriers of smokers’ compliance with smoking bans in public places: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative literature. International journal of environmental research and public health, 13(12), 1228.