Why the question stays open
Health care organizations are among the few institutions in which two authority systems are expected to live in the same building. Clinical logic places the welfare of the patient and the autonomy of the profession first. Managerial logic places the efficient use of resources and institutional accountability first. These two logics usually reside in two different occupational groups, and so the top job becomes more than an administrative post. It becomes a symbol of which logic the organization has decided to place above the other. A physician who becomes chief executive announces that clinical logic is represented at the summit of the institution. A professional manager who takes the same chair announces that management is itself a form of expertise. This is why the question of who should run the hospital is never purely technical. It is also a question of legitimacy (Noordegraaf, 2007).
The question stays open for a second reason, and it is almost the opposite of the first. It is measurable. Hospitals have quality rankings, mortality rates, patient experience scores, and financial statements. The curricula vitae of their chief executives are public. Placing the two side by side is easy, and that very ease has filled the field with contradictory findings. Studies conducted in the same country, in the same decade, with the same outcome measure, can reach opposite conclusions. The first task of any honest synthesis is to show that this contradiction is not random. Sample, measure, and context decide the result before the data are even collected.
The debate sharpened after 1980, when a wave of managerialism reshaped the public sector across many systems. New Public Management pushed organizations to balance the traditional autonomy of clinical professionals against managerial control, and the boundary between professionalism and managerialism became a permanent site of contest inside health organizations. In the same period the vocabulary that names the physician’s move into management, terms such as physician executive, clinical director, and hybrid manager, matured independently in different national literatures (Kirkpatrick et al., 2012). In the last decade a third layer arrived. The corporatization of hospitals, and the transfer of their operation to autonomous or private operators, folded the question of who should lead into a larger question of under which ownership and contract regime anyone leads at all.
Read across sixty years, the argument moves like a pendulum. In the early twentieth century a large share of hospitals in some systems were physician led. Non-physician management then became dominant. The pendulum began to swing back in the 2000s, though the return has been modest. Even where physician chief executives are celebrated, they lead only a small minority of hospitals. What has moved more decisively than practice is the evidence itself, and the direction of that movement is the subject of this article.
The framework: four decision areas, eight defensible positions
The familiar way to pose the problem, physician or manager, is too narrow to hold the evidence. A more useful frame opens the question into four separate decision areas, each of which contains two positions that the literature can defend. None of the eight positions is superior to the others in the abstract. Each carries an evidence limit that names exactly where its defensibility ends. The four areas are the professional origin of the leader, the architecture of management (whether competence is organized in one person or across a team), the criteria for selection and success, and the context and business regime that fix authority, ownership, and accountability.
Decision area 1, professional origin. Position 1, physician leadership. In institutions where clinical weight is high, process knowledge and a shared language with colleagues can be associated with a leadership advantage. Its limit: observational findings do not rule out a selection effect, and appointing a physician does not guarantee success. Position 2, the professional manager. Where financial, human resource, operational, and contractual complexity is high, demonstrated managerial competence can be preferred. Its limit: not being a physician is not itself evidence of managerial competence or financial superiority.
Decision area 2, management architecture. Position 3, dual competence in one person. Combining a medical qualification with management education can tie clinical authority to budget and strategy. Its limit: an MBA or leadership program alone proves neither clinical nor financial improvement, and the dual role carries role burden and opportunity cost. Position 4, a complementary top team. A general manager, a clinical leader, and a nursing leader can represent different kinds of knowledge together, provided decision rights are defined explicitly. Its limit: blurred authority disperses responsibility and slows decisions, and no universal superiority has been shown.
Decision area 3, selection and success. Position 5, competence and institutional fit. Clinical literacy, management experience, ethical judgment, use of data, and change management can each be measured separately. Its limit: where the measurement process is weak, the word competence can simply mask a subjective appointment. Position 6, selection against outcomes. Patient safety, complications, staff experience, access, financial balance, and reputation are outcomes that do not substitute for one another. Its limit: no single indicator represents success, and profitability alone does not show that public value has risen.
Decision area 4, context and business regime. Position 7, the institutional context. Autonomy over budget, staffing, and service planning can amplify or constrain the leader’s effect. Its limit: a model that works in one system does not transfer directly to another, and autonomy must be aligned with oversight and payment. Position 8, the separation of ownership and contract. A public corporation, a privately capitalized hospital, and non-clinical outsourcing are distinct legal and economic combinations. Its limit: corporatization is not proof of superiority, and long-run data on cost, quality, access, and accountability are required before any claim.
These eight positions rest on seven decision axes that any concrete design must fix before it can conclude that a firm should operate a hospital or that a physician should lead it: ownership, the operating legal entity, the scope of the contract, financing and payment, selection of the chief executive, the clinical authority order, and accountability. The central thesis follows directly from the frame. No universal superiority of physician or non-physician leadership has ever been demonstrated. A defensible choice weighs competence, the targeted outcome, the system context, and the accountability regime together.
The debate, strand by strand
Physician or manager: six families of answer
When the international evidence is read as a whole, the direct comparison of physician and non-physician leaders splits into six partly contradictory families. Each is correct within a particular sample, measure, and context, and seeing those conditions is the whole point.
The first family holds that the physician leader is superior because clinical credibility, influence over colleagues, and a disposition toward quality carry into the top job. Once normative, this claim gained empirical support in the most recent wave. In the largest hospital systems, physician leadership is associated with higher quality scores (Tasi et al., 2019); across several hundred ranked institutions, a physician chief executive markedly raises the probability of a higher ranking (Sankisa et al., 2024); during the COVID-19 period, physician led top hospitals showed higher patient satisfaction and capacity use (Belasen et al., 2023); among the highest ranked orthopedic hospitals, physician chief executives cluster at the top (Massey et al., 2025). The expert leadership theory explains the pattern: technical expertise in the organization’s core work lets a leader understand the real task, set credible priorities, and win the trust of an expert workforce (Goodall, 2016). The strength of this family is a consistent, repeated quality association with a strong theoretical account. Its weakness is shared by the whole chain of evidence. It rests on ranked or elite samples, the best 100, the largest systems, the top 200. In such samples the relationship may be real, but its direction is uncertain. Good hospitals may attract physician chief executives, physician chief executives may choose good hospitals, or both may follow from a third factor such as academic identity, resource wealth, and reputation. Cross-sectional design cannot separate these.
The second family shows that origin is not decisive once the lens moves from elite to ordinary hospitals. In a random national sample of acute care hospitals, a bivariate mortality difference between physician and non-physician led institutions disappeared in the multivariable model (Moores et al., 2021). Across the full population of thousands of hospitals, physician chief executives led only about six percent of institutions, showed a weak raw correlation with a recommendation score, and lost any significant association with safety and experience measures once structural differences were controlled (See et al., 2022). In academic hospitals, the chief executive’s educational background, medicine, MBA, MHA, or other, did not change the safety grade (Razick et al., 2024). The strength of this family is that it shows role behavior and outcome to be set by sample and context rather than by title. Its weakness is that null findings carry their own limits: the scarcity of physician chief executives lowers statistical power, and standard non-ranking measures may miss quality differences visible only in elite institutions.
The third family dissolves the binary altogether: the answer is domain specific. The question is not which leader, but which leader for which outcome. Physician led systems lead in quality and bed use but show no difference in revenue and margin (Tasi et al., 2019). The most instructive single study comes from neither an elite sample nor the usual setting: in a matched multivariable analysis of several hundred hospitals, physician led institutions produced lower pneumonia mortality and higher patient satisfaction, while economics and business trained managers produced better financial performance and better outcomes in elective surgery (Kaiser et al., 2020). Financial cognition and cost control emerge as a distinct competence area shaped by the budgeting system itself (Huang & Lu, 2025). The strength here is that it takes multidimensional performance seriously, and it shows that if two forms of expertise are superior in different domains, the logical problem becomes how to combine them. This is the empirical starting point of the dyad argument. Its weakness is that the domain specific pattern has so far been shown in a single study.
The fourth family moves the axis from who to which equipment, arguing that the decisive variable is managerial preparation and development rather than origin. Physician managers with management education show more transformational leadership and better care management (Xirasagar et al., 2005, 2006), and the contribution of a business degree has been documented systematically (Turner et al., 2017). A review of forty-five studies found that most physician leadership development programs focus on skills and conceptual knowledge and that nearly all report positive results, but that these results rest mainly on learner satisfaction, with only a handful documenting an organizational outcome (Frich et al., 2014). Its strength is direct policy relevance: origin cannot be changed, equipment can. Its weakness is that the causal link between education and institutional performance remains weakly established.
The fifth family rejects the opposition itself and proposes that the solution is a bridging role with dual commitment. Physician managers are attached to the clinical and managerial worlds at once, and their real value comes from that bridge (Hoff, 2000, 2001; Witman et al., 2010); competence based trust between physician and administrator improves decision outcomes (Parayitam, 2010). The cost of the bridge has also been documented, and it has not changed in thirty years. Physician managers construct themselves as physicians first (Quinn & Perelli, 2016), medical leadership is experienced as an identity struggle (Andersson, 2015), and physicians who became chief executives have described themselves as enthusiastic amateurs (Ham et al., 2011). The strength of this family is that it frames the phenomenon as both/and rather than either/or. Its weakness is the difficulty of measuring dual commitment and the risk of role conflict.
The sixth family changes the scale of the question: quality leadership does not come from one person. It arises from the composition of governance. In more than two thousand community hospitals, the quality leadership shown by senior management and the board was significantly associated with clinical staff involvement in quality improvement, and quality leadership flowed from several sources at once, managers, the board, and physician leaders (Weiner et al., 1997). Board oversight practices such as a quality committee are associated with care process and mortality (Jiang et al., 2009), and the organizational spread of clinical leadership carries performance (Daly et al., 2014). A notable boundary appears in the data: while the physician chief executive effect is confirmed, the number of physician members on the board shows no independent effect (Sankisa et al., 2024). The occupation of the chief executive matters; the composition of the board does not. The strength of this family is that it escapes the single hero chief executive fallacy. Its weakness is the complexity of attribution and the risk of blurred accountability.
The mechanisms beneath these families are four, and each runs in both directions. The expert leader sets better quality standards and directs expert staff more effectively. Clinical legitimacy lets the physician manager implement change with less resistance. A physician at the top signals the priority the institution places on clinical quality. And clinical leadership reduces the information asymmetry between the front line and management. The same mechanisms reverse. Physician managers may lack formal management and finance training, which explains why physician leadership can help quality while leaving financial indicators untouched and why business trained managers excel financially. The move into a managerial role can distance the physician from clinical practice, the very source of legitimacy. And part of the observed relationship may come not from physician origin but from selection. A critical caveat from implementation science compounds all of this: almost none of the studies specifies who the physician chief executive actually is, what the person does, or how and when and at what intensity. That missing specification means that when two studies disagree, we cannot tell how much of the difference is context and how much is that they defined physician chief executive differently in the first place (Hoffmann et al., 2014).
The durable core of this strand is easy to state. The claim has not been overturned; it has narrowed. Physicians are superior in elite institutions and on quality and experience measures; business trained managers in finance and some surgical outcomes; on the national average there is no difference. What does not change is the dual commitment of the physician manager and the multiple sources of leadership. The most durable evidence gaps are causality (the literature is stuck in cross-sectional correlations), the absence of a multidimensional outcome frame that models quality and finance together, geography (nearly all direct comparison is confined to two high-income systems), untested mechanisms, and the heterogeneity of the physician chief executive category that makes the intervention itself undefined.
Who are the managers? Attributed origin versus acquired competence
A step back asks a more basic question. Who actually leads health care organizations, and what does their background affect: competence, decision style, or performance? Background is not one variable. It bundles clinical or non-clinical origin, formal education and degrees, acquired managerial competences, structured leadership development, organizational and sectoral experience, and the leadership behaviors gained over time. Each component can work through a different mechanism on a different outcome.
The most useful way to organize the evidence is a distinction between the attributed and the acquired. The attributed layer, who the leader is, which profession they came from, is largely fixed. The acquired layer, what the leader has developed, competences, formal education, leadership behaviors, experience, can be developed through intervention. This distinction captures the arc of the field, because as health systems shifted from professional authority to organizational leadership, the explanatory weight moved from the attributed layer to the acquired layer (Baker & Denis, 2011). It also matters for policy: the attributed layer can be managed only through selection and appointment, while the acquired layer can be managed through education, development, and role design.
Six families answer the question of which component matters. The first holds that attributed clinical origin is decisive, reporting a positive association between clinically trained leaders and quality (Sarto & Veronesi, 2016), while systematic reviews warn that the concept of medical leadership is diffuse and its measurement uncertain (Berghout et al., 2017; Clay-Williams et al., 2017). The second foregrounds formal management or health management education and degrees, and studies of the determinants of competence support this at the level of perceived competence: managers with management training report significantly higher competence, and in some settings management education is the only significant predictor once other factors are controlled (Kalhor et al., 2016; Paarima et al., 2022; Gunawan et al., 2020). The catch is that competence in these studies is measured almost entirely by self-report, and where it was tested against an objective institutional outcome the answer was negative (Razick et al., 2024). The third and increasingly central family severs the question from the diploma: what matters is not which degree but whether defined competences are met. Systematic reviews define multidimensional competence clusters, and top management competences have been shown empirically to affect performance in specific conditions (Vainieri et al., 2017), while nurse manager competence has been linked directly to the practice environment, missed care, and patient outcomes (Warshawsky et al., 2022). Frameworks first offered as universal standards have since been adapted to context and culture and extended with digital and financial content. The fourth family turns background into a field of intervention, showing that evidence based leadership development can improve individual outcomes (Geerts et al., 2020) and that transformational leadership interventions can strengthen managers’ implementation leadership (Richter et al., 2015), with effects that depend on context, mechanism, and outcome (Lega et al., 2017). The fifth foregrounds acquired leadership behaviors, documenting associations between authentic and transformational leadership and staff and patient outcomes (Alilyyani et al., 2018; Conroy et al., 2023), though it is exposed to self-report and common method bias. The sixth locates the effect of background elsewhere entirely: background shapes not how well decisions are made but which information and which style shape them, so that a leader’s professional origin is related to which information influences the decision, while age and tenure are not (Simonen et al., 2009).
The seventh finding is the common denominator of all six families, and it is the most durable in the whole literature. Wherever they come from, managers are not adequately prepared for the managerial role. This preparation gap was documented in the early 1990s, restated in the early 2000s in studies of large systems, and confirmed again in the 2020s, with the sharpest deficits at the middle level, where capacity most needs systematic development. In thirty years the gap has not closed. It has only been documented better.
Two cross-cutting factors reshape every family. The first is context and system governance. A background means little on its own; it acquires meaning only together with the rules of the system in which the leader works. A physician leader may produce strong results in a system that grants wide authority over budget and staffing, and almost none in a system where decisions are made centrally. The second is representation and diversity. A fact often lost in this debate is how few women, and especially how few women nurses, reach senior hospital leadership even where the clinical workforce is overwhelmingly female. Long neglected, this dimension is now increasingly visible (Mousa et al., 2021; Kalaitzi et al., 2017).
Does background translate into performance? Seven pathways
The first two strands expose a gap. Background affects perceived competence, but whether it translates into objective performance is unclear. Read as a whole, the direct evidence reorganizes the question from does background matter into by which pathways does background become performance, and it yields seven pathways, each pointing to a different mechanism and a different performance dimension.
Clinical credibility works in quality and experience but not in finance. Physician leadership is consistently associated with quality ranking, patient satisfaction, and crisis capacity use, and with lower burnout, but the association is cross-sectional, drawn from elite samples, and, as the first strand showed, vanishes on the national average after adjustment. The relationship is conditional on the performance dimension, physician led systems achieving higher quality and bed use but no advantage in revenue or margin, while business trained managers lead in finance and some surgical outcomes (Kaiser et al., 2020). The decisive variable is not the diploma but competence and role construction: physicians are often promoted on clinical expertise while the skill, training, or desire for leadership is missing (Quinn & Perelli, 2016), and the position of the physician in the system and the policy context shapes the result (Denis & van Gestel, 2016). The historically dominant professional manager thesis, which tied financial and operational performance to managerial rather than clinical expertise, is the line that has eroded most: its core, the advantage of managerial origin in the financial domain, survives, but its general claim does not (Kaiser et al., 2020). Relationship, trust, and power form a fifth pathway, where the determinant is not one leader’s background but the quality of the manager-physician relationship: mutual power feeds trust, and competence based trust improves decision outcomes (Parayitam, 2010). Board, governance, and collective leadership form a sixth, where quality and mortality are explained less by the chief executive’s individual background than by governance structures such as a board quality committee (Jiang et al., 2009; Behal & Finn, 2009). The seventh and most honest pathway is evidence cautious: systematic reviews report that how clinical background affects performance is still poorly understood, that studies are few, heterogeneous, and lacking comparative design (Sarto & Veronesi, 2016; Clay-Williams et al., 2017), and that the raw advantage weakens after confounder control (See et al., 2022; Moores et al., 2021). What may really move performance is incentive design and professional motivation rather than the leader’s background (Lubarsky et al., 2019).
What survives across time is the positive association of clinical leadership with clinical quality and the contribution of clinical involvement and board oversight to quality. What changes is the weakening of the causal reading, the failure of any financial superiority to settle on either side, and the shift of explanatory focus from the single leader to competence, trust, board oversight, and incentive design.
Is a degree competence? MBA, MHA, and MPH
If management education is the most consistent lever of competence, the natural test is whether formal management education genuinely improves the manager’s competence, the institution’s performance, and the manager’s career, and whether the contribution comes from the diploma itself or from the competences it confers. Seven families answer.
The human capital thesis holds that education confers knowledge and skill, and it is supported across occupations and settings, with graduates reporting higher competence, especially in people management and communication (Turner et al., 2017; Jankelová et al., 2021), though the evidence rests largely on self-report and is vulnerable to the selection effect that ambitious people pursue education. A smaller but more important set reaches institutional performance: graduates of a locally established health management program produced measurable pre-post improvement in adherence to management standards (Kebede et al., 2009, 2012), accredited graduation and professional certification have been examined against financial and quality performance, and business trained chief executives showed better financial performance (Kaiser et al., 2020). The third family argues that the contribution comes from the integration of clinical expertise with management education, the hybrid degree, which sends graduates toward hybrid identities and combined roles though at high cost and with some drift away from clinical practice (Krupat et al., 2016; Hoff, 1999). The fourth and most durable family moves the focus from the diploma to specific competences: what matters is not the degree but the defined competences, and clinicians promoted into management often lack basic administrative skills and need local, contextual training rather than long, theoretical programs (Stefl, 2008; Revere et al., 2015). The fifth family stresses how hard the effect is to prove, noting that a systematic review of e-learning in health leadership found no evidence of effectiveness and that the value of the MBA for physician managers has been called poorly defined (Tudor Car et al., 2018; Turner et al., 2017). The sixth family sees the diploma partly as a signal, a competence marker, career currency, and selection criterion, rather than a guarantee of skill (Zweigenthal et al., 2016; Lieneck et al., 2017). The seventh shows that education programs are themselves shaped by the country’s financing and management model (Weil, 2013).
The clearest lesson is that the marginal value of education is proportional to the capacity gap. Where the gap is large, the effect is visible; in mature systems, experience and selection overshadow it. The most durable finding of all is again the preparation gap: the managerial competence deficit of clinicians and their demand for training recur without interruption. The evidence supports competence, demonstrable and certifiable, over the diploma as such, because a degree requirement can quickly become career currency and a cover for subjective appointment.
Growing from within: tenure, experience, and succession
Education is one route to competence; experience is the other. Do managers who rise inside the organization, who are senior and sector experienced, perform better? The answer rests on the thinnest evidence base in the entire field, and that thinness is itself the finding. The theoretical argument for the insider is strong: firm specific knowledge, relationship networks, and cultural fit raise decision accuracy and strategic continuity, and board insiders have been associated with financial viability (Molinari et al., 1993; Thoebes et al., 2023). Practice, however, has drifted the other way. Studies of internal versus external chief executive succession give mixed results attributed largely to design flaws, yet the preference for external appointment has grown as an unproven tendency rather than an evidence based choice (Ford et al., 2018). A learning curve and a ceiling are implied by adjacent evidence: nurse managers rate themselves competent in the first six years and reach proficiency in the seventh, with the strongest link to experience (Warshawsky & Cramer, 2019); many physician chief executives are in their first post (Ham et al., 2011); and a ten-year physician chief executive tenure enabled comprehensive restructuring but ended in strategic disagreement (Ingebrigtsen, 2022). The productive move has been to shift the question from a single appointment decision to structured succession planning and an internal talent pool, with middle managers recognized as a vital resource to be included in succession (Belasen & Belasen, 2016). The most honest position is that seniority is an evidence gap: a review reached only twelve studies, the insider-outsider debate is confined largely to one literature, and no comparative evidence exists across ownership and financing models. Here the gap is the primary output.
The hybrid manager: bridge or fracture
The first five strands progressively defined a dilemma. Clinical legitimacy and managerial competence are superior in different domains, neither suffices alone, and combining them in one person generates tension. The hybrid clinician-manager is the individual form of that combination, and collective forms distribute leadership across layers. The hybrid role is a direct product of the expert intensive, managerially complex nature of health organizations, and it converts the classic who should lead question into how are the two logics integrated (Noordegraaf, 2007; Baker & Denis, 2011). Six conceptualizations organize the evidence.
The first sees hybridity as the evolution of professionalism and a reform instrument, a bridge, the product of the shift from professional authority to organizational leadership, and it has held its place as a core reform strategy for two decades (Noordegraaf, 2007; Prenestini et al., 2021). The second sees the other face of the same role, identity tension and fracture, distinguishing willing from incidental hybrids, documenting organizational-professional conflict, and describing clinician-managers as reluctant leaders who experience a permanent in-betweenness (McGivern et al., 2015; Kippist & Fitzgerald, 2009; Gordon et al., 2020). The third locates the difference between bridge and fracture not in the individual but in the organization, showing that hybrids translate conflicting institutional logics and that the enabling conditions can be systematized, with quantitative work tying budget participation, work engagement, and self-efficacy to performance (Blomgren & Waks, 2015; Macinati et al., 2016, 2018; Sartirana & Giacomelli, 2023). The fourth distributes leadership across layers and teams, associating distributed patterns with service improvement and shared governance with engagement and satisfaction, though outcomes remain largely at the level of staff attitudes with a weak link to patient outcomes (Fitzgerald et al., 2013; Quek et al., 2021). The fifth is the critique of the collective leadership discourse, showing that distributed leadership is adopted as policy but that the old hierarchy persists in practice, and that in resource constrained settings it can become responsibility without autonomy (McKee et al., 2013; Martin et al., 2014; Nzinga et al., 2018). The sixth stresses that the role is embedded in national history, so that the clinical director takes different forms in different systems (Kitchener, 2000; Correia & Denis, 2016).
The single finding that does not change across three decades is that the dual-role tension is structural and permanent. The most concrete design rule follows from the enabling organization: the hybrid must participate in the budget and decision process, because excluding the clinical leader from budget and decision produces hybrid withdrawal, the abandonment of the managerial role in favor of the clinical one (Macinati et al., 2016; Kippist & Fitzgerald, 2009). The main gaps are that hybridity’s link to outcomes is mostly qualitative and conceptual, that distributed leadership’s link to patient outcomes is weak, and that hard institutional performance remains an open question.
Corporatization: the person or the governance architecture?
The first six strands read the question along the axis of the individual. Corporatization answers at a higher level and moves the subject from the person to the structure. The answer is no longer someone of a given profession but a corporate governance architecture: an entity in which ownership is separated from operation, the top organ is a board, and a relatively autonomous enterprise runs under a hard budget constraint and performance accountability. Corporatization converts who into a question of which board, which accountability regime, which degree of autonomy, and how the clinician is integrated. The reform options lie on a continuum from autonomization through corporatization to privatization, and corporatization is the middle link: ownership usually stays public while operation follows a commercial logic, with a separate legal entity, a board, accrual accounting, a hard budget constraint, and the assumption of revenue risk.
Five families answer from within this frame. The first is the corporate governance board: the hospital is run not by a person but by a board working on principles of authority, transparency, and accountability, though governance models borrowed from the corporate world cannot be transferred wholesale to the multi-stakeholder hospital (Eeckloo et al., 2004). The strongest evidence is that boards using a corporate governance model outperform traditional philanthropic boards on a range of outcomes, most clearly in independent public hospitals (Alexander & Lee, 2006), yet there is no ideal board form, and effective boards are better defined by dynamics, high trust, high challenge, high engagement, than by structure (Chambers, 2012). The presence of independent directors raises profitability while board size and chief executive duality lower performance (Afriyie et al., 2020). The second family is the autonomous public enterprise: keep ownership public while granting the operation managerial autonomy. The evidence does not support the optimism. A cycle of grant autonomy then take it back recurs, and productivity studies show that the effect of market-structure reform on performance is neither definite nor unidirectional (Ferreira & Marques, 2014). The gains, where they appear, are often not sustained: in one national model, targeted improvements in the first two periods reversed after a decade, with profits failing to rise and free cash flow turning negative (Nakagawa et al., 2022). The third family entrusts management to an external discipline, quasi-market, competition, incentive, and performance measurement, and the evidence for efficiency is weak: hospitals managed under New Public Management showed no significant technical efficiency advantage (Alonso et al., 2015), incentives relate to efficiency while competition does not (Lindaas et al., 2024), and market discipline exacts a cost on the clinical workforce through work intensification and missed care (Willis et al., 2015, 2017). The fourth family, paradoxically, draws the clinician back to the center: the leader is neither pure physician nor pure manager but a hybrid actor, and its organizational form is the dyad, where equal power sharing between a clinician and a manager can break professional silos and enable clinical redesign (Bolous et al., 2022). The fifth is the counter-thesis: corporatization’s answer can remain formal and often reverses, with autonomy experienced as the freedom to do what you are told (Hoque et al., 2004), reforms proving reversible under political change (Alonso et al., 2021; Simonet, 2015b), and clinician alienation and moral injury emerging as the most consistent side effect (Woerner et al., 2024; Persson et al., 2021).
Three conclusions from forty years of this literature have not fallen. In the corporatization frame the answer is an architecture, not a person; the physician-or-manager dilemma is not solved but raised to a higher-level design question. Corporate governance and board design can be associated with performance, but the association is conditional and depends on board dynamics more than form. And the hybridization of clinical and managerial logic is inevitable and manageable: corporatization does not expel the clinician from management, it draws the clinician in. Three conclusions have become fragile. Autonomy equals efficiency has weakened repeatedly. New Public Management equals performance has become selective: incentive works, competition does not. And delegated authority is permanent has been falsified most clearly of all, with reform shown to be reversible across many systems. The determining condition is the same throughout the evidence: not the policy itself but the manner of its implementation and the context.
Context changes everything: the moderators
The seven strands largely read the relationships between background and outcome as context free main effects. In reality these relationships are sensitive to the properties of the context in which they are observed, and the variables that change the strength or direction of a relationship are moderators. Four stand out.
The first is sample and measure, which the physician-versus-manager strand already made visible. In the same system, the physician chief executive advantage exists in the elite sample and vanishes in the national sample; it exists on the ranking measure and vanishes on the standard safety measure. Any reading that ignores this treats an artifact of sampling as a finding about leadership.
The second is ownership and sector. Public hospitals are marked by bureaucratic and political accountability, civil-service status, and strong professional autonomy; private hospitals by financial discipline, flexible employment, and market pressure. The same leadership behavior does not yield the same return in both. The corporatization of a public hospital brings managerial method but also professional resistance, and changing the ownership form alone does not secure managerial effectiveness; it requires renegotiating professional identities (Carvalho, 2014). What moves performance is not ownership itself but the incentive structure ownership sets, and the legal form alone changes nothing (Lubarsky et al., 2019).
The third is crisis versus normal time. Crisis raises decision speed, uncertainty, and the load on staff, and these conditions change the leadership recipe that holds in normal time. The common finding of the post-pandemic literature is clear: the ideal leader profile shifts in a crisis, with clinical credibility and rapid, centralized decision gaining weight.
The fourth is resource level. The marginal value of a management intervention, and of education in particular, is largest where the capacity gap is largest and is overshadowed by experience and selection in mature systems. This single moderator reconciles a great deal of apparent contradiction across studies.
The six program theories, tested against the evidence
A realist synthesis does not ask whether a leadership model works. It asks in which context, through which mechanism, it produces which outcome. Read this way, the accumulated evidence supports six program theories, each stated as a context-mechanism-outcome configuration, and each carrying a level of confidence set by how independently the evidence confirms it.
Before the six, one thing the whole literature says together must be named. A leader’s background, profession, education, experience, consistently affects perceived competence and decision style. Its effect on objective institutional performance depends on context, sample, and measure, and is often not demonstrable. This perception-performance gap appears independently in the physician-versus-manager strand (elite versus national sample), in the who-are-the-managers strand (competence present, safety grade unchanged), and in the education strand (education raises perceived competence, organizational outcome rare). The six theories all live inside this gap; each promises to close it from one side.
Theory 1, clinical credibility. A physician-origin leader, through clinical legitimacy and internal expertise, raises the commitment of clinical staff and the accuracy of quality decisions, producing higher quality and patient experience. The evidence supports this partly and conditionally. The mechanism fires in elite and academic institutions, in strong professional cultures, under ranking pressure, and in crisis; its outcome is quality ranking, satisfaction, and capacity use. In the average institution, in financial outcomes, and on standard safety measures the mechanism is not observed, and in a for-profit context the physician breaks from clinical practice and loses the mechanism’s source.
Theory 2, managerial competence. Formal management education and managerial competence, independent of origin, raise managerial skill and yield better operational and financial performance. The evidence supports this strongly at the level of perceived competence and career, and selectively at the objective level. The mechanism, human capital, self-efficacy, and the legitimation of the managerial role, works where the competence gap is large and where real decision rights and financial accountability exist; its outcome is perceived competence, career progression, adherence to management standards, and financial performance. A link to clinical quality outcomes cannot be established, and in mature managerial labor markets experience overshadows education while the diploma works as a signal.
Theory 3, dyad complementarity. Pairing a clinical leader with a managerial leader completes each one’s deficit, joining clinical legitimacy with managerial discipline so that both quality and finance improve together. The evidence is theoretically strong, empirically thin, and qualitatively supportive. The dyad closes the authority-responsibility gap, its functioning is sensitive to role clarity, and it fractures under power asymmetry. The mechanism, complementary expertise, shared legitimacy, and the division of the single person’s identity load, works in multi-logic, multi-institution arrangements under conditions of clear role boundaries, trust, power balance, and top support; its expected outcome is sustainable integration and balanced performance. Without these preconditions it produces accountability blur and instability, and a change of partner interrupts the mechanism. This theory rests on single-source evidence and holds the lowest confidence.
Theory 4, hybrid identity tension. The clinician-manager in a dual role experiences tension between professional and managerial identity; without organizational support the person abandons the role or retreats into reluctant leadership, and with support the person serves as a bridge. This is the most strongly and durably supported theory in the whole synthesis. The tension recurs unchanged across three decades, and the conditional part is supported too: budget participation, value congruence, and work engagement mediate the hybrid’s translation into performance, while public-sector and crisis contexts enlarge the tension. The output is reluctant leadership and role abandonment without support, and a bridge function with support.
Theory 5, growing from within. Internally grown, senior managers make more accurate decisions through firm-specific knowledge, relationship networks, and cultural fit, producing continuity and performance. The evidence supports the theory conceptually; direct empirical evidence is thin and mixed. The mechanism, firm-specific knowledge, trust networks, and the learning curve, works in stable organizations with a structured internal talent pool and a tenure that allows the learning curve; its outcome is competence and strategic continuity, with the risks of weakened independent oversight, lock-in, and strategic disagreement in a very long tenure. This theory also rests on single-source evidence and holds low confidence.
Theory 6, corporatization as moderator. Corporatization and autonomy, by granting the leader real decision rights, strengthen the effect of the leader’s background and competence on performance, but this strengthening depends on governance and financing preconditions. The evidence supports the moderation partly and the conditionality strongly. Where accountability and performance pressure meet real decision rights, managerial competence is brought to the fore; but corporatization’s own effect is null or reverse without governance and financing, autonomy produces perverse incentives without a payment reform, and reform reverses when political will changes. The moderation works positively under strong public financing and regulatory capacity, a legal framework, payment reform, transparency, and genuine board oversight, and negatively under weak governance, revenue-retention autonomy, and unregulated pricing, where it drives supplier-induced demand, cost escalation, and two-tier care.
The six theories are not independent; they form a system. Clinical credibility (1) works only when hybrid identity tension (4) is managed, because an unsupported physician leader withdraws and wastes the advantage. Managerial competence (2) becomes performance only when the preconditions of the corporatization moderator (6) are met, because competence without real decision rights stays in perception. Dyad complementarity (3) is the design that joins the domain-specific superiorities of the first two theories, but it does not abolish the tension of the fourth; it divides it between two people. Growing from within (5) is the condition of sustaining all of this over time and protects the dyad against a change of partner. And the context moderators change the coefficients of these links: resource level sets the marginal contribution of the second theory, ownership sets the direction of the sixth, crisis sets the strength of the first. When a design ignores these links, strengthening one theory can weaken another.
The middle-range theory: management arrangement, not manager
Taken together, the six refined theories propose a middle-range theory that replaces the who-should-lead question. Institutional outcomes in health organizations arise not from the leader’s attributed origin but from the fit between the management arrangement and the context, where the arrangement is defined by who leads with which decision rights, with which competence, with which support structures, with which tenure, and under which ownership and financing regime. The arrangement fires positive mechanisms when it satisfies four conditions at once. First, clinical legitimacy is tied to clinical quality decisions and the clinical leader is not severed from practice. Second, managerial competence is matched with real decision rights and financial accountability. Third, the tension between the two logics is managed through organizational support structures such as budget participation, value congruence, and profession-specific development. Fourth, the arrangement is sustained over time through structured succession and a tenure that allows the learning curve. Beneath these four conditions, the ownership and financing regime sets their coefficient: without a governance and payment reform, autonomy turns the second condition into a perverse incentive and the first into revenue seeking. The prediction is that an arrangement satisfying the four conditions produces better multidimensional performance than an arrangement in the same context that does not, regardless of the leaders’ professional origin.
What is left standing: three constants and three unknowns
Three things have not changed and probably will not. The dual-commitment tension of the physician manager is structural in every system, and it is the finding confirmed with the highest confidence across the literature. The preparation gap of managers, whatever their background, is persistent across three decades. And the tension between autonomy and accountability has never been fully resolved by any reform. A design should aim not to abolish these three constants but to manage them.
Three things are still unknown. There is no controlled, longitudinal evidence linking a leader’s background and competence to objective institutional performance. The effect of the dyad and of tenure length on performance has not been directly tested, and both theories rest on single-source evidence. And because much of the evidence from resource constrained systems rests on failed implementations, what a well-implemented model could deliver remains uncertain.
Conclusion: not who, but how
Sixty years of evidence, seven search strands, and two bibliographic windows do not give a short answer to who should run the hospital. They give a better question. There is no binary answer to physician or manager; the answer depends on sample and measure. In elite institutions the physician chief executive is associated with quality and experience; on the national average that association disappears, and the largest single-country study shows physicians superior in some clinical domains and business trained managers superior in the financial one. A leader’s background consistently affects perceived competence and decision style; its link to objective performance is shown at the level of the individual and the unit, not at the level of the framework and the institution. Management education is the most consistent lever of competence independent of background, but it returns most where the competence gap is largest, its link to clinical quality cannot be established, and the diploma is also a signal. Experience is among the strongest predictors of competence, and the insider advantage is theoretically sound but empirically thin. The hybrid manager is both bridge and fracture, and which one it becomes is set by the conditions of the organization, not the quality of the individual. Corporatization can convert managerial competence into performance, but only when the governance and financing ground is laid, and it is reversible in systems with strong states and weak market institutions. Context moderates all of it: ownership sets direction, crisis sets strength, resource level sets the marginal contribution.
The common thread is a shift of frame. Over sixty years the field has moved from who to in which context, with which competence, with which support, with which tenure, and under which governance regime. That shift is not a defeat but a maturation: to learn that a binary question has no binary answer is to learn that the question was posed wrongly. We do not know who should run the hospital. But about how a hospital should be run, which arrangement, in which context, through which mechanism, produces which outcome, we know a great deal more than we did sixty years ago.
References
Afriyie, S. O., Kong, Y., Lartey, P. Y., Kaodui, L., Bediako, I. A., Wu, W., & Kyeremateng, P. H. (2020). Financial performance of hospitals: A critical obligation of corporate governance dimensions. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 35(6), 1468–1485. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3049
Alexander, J. A., & Lee, S. D. (2006). Does governance matter? Board configuration and performance in not-for-profit hospitals. The Milbank Quarterly, 84(4), 733–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2006.00466.x
Alilyyani, B., Wong, C. A., & Cummings, G. (2018). Antecedents, mediators, and outcomes of authentic leadership in healthcare: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 83, 34–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.04.001
Alonso, J. M., Clifton, J., & Díaz-Fuentes, D. (2015). The impact of New Public Management on efficiency: An analysis of Madrid’s hospitals. Health Policy, 119(3), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.001
Alonso, J. M., Clifton, J., & Díaz‐Fuentes, D. (2021). Corporatization and political ideology: The case of hospitals in Spain. Public Administration, 100(2), 324–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12776
Andersson, T. (2015). The medical leadership challenge in healthcare is an identity challenge. Leadership in Health Services, 28(2), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhs-04-2014-0032
Baker, G. R., & Denis, J.-L. (2011). Medical leadership in health care systems: From professional authority to organizational leadership. Public Money & Management, 31(5), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2011.598349
Behal, R., & Finn, J. (2009). Understanding and improving inpatient mortality in academic medical centers. Academic Medicine, 84(12), 1657–1662. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e3181bf4e8b
Belasen, A., & Belasen, A. R. (2016). Value in the middle: Cultivating middle managers in healthcare organizations. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1149–1162. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-12-2015-0173
Belasen, A., Belasen, A., & Feng, Z. (2023). The physician CEO advantage and hospital performance during the COVID-19 pandemic: Capacity utilization and patient satisfaction. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 37(3), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-04-2022-0126
Berghout, M. A., Fabbricotti, I. N., Buljac-Samardžić, M., & Hilders, C. G. J. M. (2017). Medical leaders or masters?—A systematic review of medical leadership in hospital settings. PLOS ONE, 12(9), e0184522. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184522
Bolous, N. S., Graetz, D. E., Ashrafian, H., Barlow, J., Bhakta, N., Sounderajah, V., & Dowdeswell, B. (2022). Harnessing a clinician-led governance model to overcome healthcare tribalism and drive innovation: a case study of Northumbria NHS Foundation Trust. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 37(9), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-05-2022-0157
Carvalho, T. (2014). Changing connections between professionalism and managerialism: A case study of nursing in Portugal. Journal of Professions and Organization, 1(2), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jou004
Chambers, N. (2012). Healthcare board governance. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 26(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777261211211133
Clay-Williams, R., Ludlow, K., Testa, L., Li, Z., & Braithwaite, J. (2017). Medical leadership, a systematic narrative review: Do hospitals and healthcare organisations perform better when led by doctors?. BMJ Open, 7(9), e014474. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014474
Conroy, N., Patton, D., Moore, Z., O’Connor, T., Nugent, L., & Derwin, R. (2023). The relationship between transformational leadership and staff nurse retention in hospital settings: a systematic review. Journal of Nursing Management, 2023, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9577200
Correia, T., & Denis, J. L. (2016). Hybrid management, organizational configuration, and medical professionalism: evidence from the establishment of a clinical directorate in Portugal. BMC Health Services Research, 16(S2), Article 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1398-2
Daly, J., Jackson, D., Mannix, J., Davidson, P., & Hutchinson, M. (2014). The importance of clinical leadership in the hospital setting. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 75. https://doi.org/10.2147/jhl.s46161
Denis, J.-L., & van Gestel, N. (2016). Medical doctors in healthcare leadership: theoretical and practical challenges. BMC Health Services Research, 16(S2), Article 158. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1392-8
Eeckloo, K., Van Herck, G., Van Hulle, C., & Vleugels, A. (2004). From corporate governance to hospital governance. Health Policy, 68(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.07.009
Ferreira, D., & Marques, R. C. (2014). Did the corporatization of Portuguese hospitals significantly change their productivity?. The European Journal of Health Economics, 16(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0574-8
Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., McGivern, G., & Buchanan, D. (2013). Distributed leadership patterns and service improvement: evidence and argument from English healthcare. The Leadership Quarterly, 24(1), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2012.10.012
Ford, E. W., Lowe, K. B., Silvera, G. B., Babik, D., & Huerta, T. R. (2018). Insider versus outsider executive succession: the relationship to hospital efficiency. Health Care Management Review, 43(1), 61–68. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000112
Frich, J. C., Brewster, A. L., Cherlin, E. J., & Bradley, E. H. (2014). Leadership development programs for physicians: a systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 30(5), 656–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3141-1
Geerts, J. M., Goodall, A. H., & Agius, S. (2020). Evidence-based leadership development for physicians: a systematic literature review. Social Science & Medicine, 246, 112709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112709
Goodall, A. H. (2011). Physician-leaders and hospital performance: is there an association?. Social Science & Medicine, 73(4), 535–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.025
Goodall, A. H. (2016). A theory of expert leadership (TEL) in psychiatry. Australasian Psychiatry, 24(3), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856215609760
Gordon, L., Rees, C. E., & Jindal‐Snape, D. (2020). Doctors’ identity transitions: choosing to occupy a state of ‘betwixt and between’. Medical Education, 54(11), 1006–1018. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14219
Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., Fisher, M. L., McDaniel, A. M., & Marzilli, C. (2020). Managerial competence of first-line nurse managers in public hospitals in Indonesia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, Volume 13, 1017–1025. https://doi.org/10.2147/jmdh.s269150
Ham, C., Clark, J., Spurgeon, P., Dickinson, H., & Armit, K. (2011). Doctors who become chief executives in the NHS: from keen amateurs to skilled professionals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(3), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110042
Hoff, T. J. (1999). The paradox of legitimacy: physician executives and the practice of medicine. Health Care Management Review, 24(4), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004010-199910000-00007
Hoff, T. J. (2000). Professional commitment among US physician executives in managed care. Social Science & Medicine, 50(10), 1433–1444. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00410-4
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., Lamb, S. E., Dixon-Woods, M., McCulloch, P., Wyatt, J. C., Chan, A. W., & Michie, S. (2014). Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ, 348(mar07 3), g1687–g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687
Hoque, K., Davis, S., & Humphreys, M. (2004). Freedom to do what you are told: Senior management team autonomy in an NHS acute trust. Public Administration, 82(2), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2004.00398.x
Huang, W.-H., & Lu, C.-T. (2025). The effect of hospital budgeting system on physician-executives’ budget cognitive consciousness and medical decision making. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 23(1), Article 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12962-025-00629-5
Ingebrigtsen, T. (2022). Ten-year tenure as a physician CEO at a Nordic university hospital: five lessons learnt. BMJ Leader, 7(1), 3–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/leader-2021-000558
Jankelová, N., Joniaková, Z., & Romanová, A. (2021). The need for management education of healthcare management employees. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 37(1), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3325
Jiang, J. H., Lockee, C., Bass, K., & Fraser, I. (2009). Board oversight of quality: Any differences in process of care and mortality?. Journal of Healthcare Management, 54(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-200901000-00005
Kaiser, F., Schmid, A., & Schlüchtermann, J. (2020). Physician-leaders and hospital performance revisited. Social Science & Medicine, 249, 112831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112831
Kalaitzi, S., Czabanowska, K., Fowler-Davis, S., & Brand, H. (2017). Women leadership barriers in healthcare, academia and business. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 36(5), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-03-2017-0058
Kalhor, R., Tajnesaei, M., Kakemam, E., Keykaleh, M. S., & Kalhor, L. (2016). Perceived hospital managerial competency in Tehran, Iran: is there a difference between public and private hospitals?. The Journal of the Egyptian Public Health Association, 91(4), 157-162.
Kebede, S., Abebe, Y., Wolde, M., Bekele, B., Mantopoulos, J., & Bradley, E. H. (2009). Educating leaders in hospital management: a new model in Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 22(1), 39–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzp051
Kebede, S., Mantopoulos, J., Ramanadhan, S., Cherlin, E., Gebeyehu, M., Lawson, R., & Bradley, E. H. (2012). Educating leaders in hospital management: A pre-post study in Ethiopian hospitals. Global Public Health, 7(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2010.542171
Kippist, L., & Fitzgerald, A. (2009). Organisational professional conflict and hybrid clinician managers. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(6), 642–655. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260911001653
Kirkpatrick, I., Bullinger, B., Dent, M., & Lega, F. (2012). The development of medical-manager roles in European hospital systems: a framework for comparison. International Journal of Clinical Practice, 66(2), 121–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02844.x
Kitchener, M. (2000). The ‘bureaucratization’ of professional roles: The case of clinical directors in UK hospitals. Organization, 7(1), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840071007
Krupat, E., Dienstag, J. L., Kester, W. C., & Finkelstein, S. N. (2016). Medical students who pursue a joint MD/MBA degree: who are they and where are they heading?. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 40(2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278715620831
Lega, F., Prenestini, A., & Rosso, M. (2017). Leadership research in healthcare: a realist review. Health Services Management Research, 30(2), 94–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484817708915
Lieneck, C., Collins, S., McKinnies, R., & Watts, S. (2017). Hospital chief executive officer perspectives on health care administration academic preparations. The Health Care Manager, 36(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/hcm.0000000000000143
Lindaas, N. A., Anthun, K. S., & Magnussen, J. (2024). New Public Management and hospital efficiency: the case of Norwegian public hospital trusts. BMC Health Services Research, 24(1), Article 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10479-7
Lubarsky, D. A., French, M. T., Gitlow, H. S., Rosen, L. F., & Ullmann, S. G. (2019). Why money alone can’t (always) “nudge” physicians: the role of behavioral economics in the design of physician incentives. Anesthesiology, 130(1), 154–170. https://doi.org/10.1097/aln.0000000000002373
Macinati, M. S., Bozzi, S., & Rizzo, M. G. (2016). Budgetary participation and performance: The mediating effects of medical managers’ job engagement and self-efficacy. Health Policy, 120(9), 1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.08.005
Macinati, M. S., Nieddu, L., & Rizzo, M. G. (2018). Examining the role of value congruence, professional identity, and managerial job engagement in the budgetary participation–performance link. Health Care Management Review, 45(4), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000231
Martin, G., Beech, N., MacIntosh, R., & Bushfield, S. (2014). Potential challenges facing distributed leadership in health care: evidence from the UK National Health Service. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12171
Massey, P. A., O’Quin, C., Shamieh, K. S., Fincher, P., Rutz, R. W., & Warner, J. J. P. (2025). Physician-led orthopaedic hospitals outperform nonphysician-led orthopaedic hospitals: an analysis of the top 200 orthopaedic hospitals. Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 33(11), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00814
McGivern, G., Currie, G., Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., & Waring, J. (2015). Hybrid manager–professionals’ identity work: the maintenance and hybridization of medical professionalism in managerial contexts. Public Administration, 93(2), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12119
McKee, L., Charles, K., Dixon-Woods, M., Willars, J., & Martin, G. (2013). ‘New’ and distributed leadership in quality and safety in health care, or ‘old’ and hierarchical? An interview study with strategic stakeholders. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 18(2_suppl), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613484460
Molinari, C., Morlock, L., Alexander, J., & Lyles, C. A. (1993). Hospital board effectiveness: relationships between governing board composition and hospital financial viability. Health Services Research, 28(3), 358.
Moores, L. E., Landry, A., Hernandez, S. R., Szychowski, J. M., & Borkowski, N. (2021). Reported clinical and financial performance of hospitals with physician CEOs compared to those with nonphysician CEOs. Journal of Healthcare Management, 66(6), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-20-00157
Mousa, M., Boyle, J., Skouteris, H., Mullins, A. K., Currie, G., Riach, K., & Teede, H. J. (2021). Advancing women in healthcare leadership: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of multi-sector evidence on organisational interventions. EClinicalMedicine, 39, 101084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101084
Nakagawa, Y., Irisa, K., Nakagawa, Y., & Kanatani, Y. (2022). Hospital management and public health role of national hospitals after transformation into independent administrative agencies. Healthcare, 10(10), 2084. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10102084
Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism. Administration & Society, 39(6), 761–785. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304434
Nzinga, J., McGivern, G., & English, M. (2018). Examining clinical leadership in Kenyan public hospitals through the distributed leadership lens. Health Policy and Planning, 33(suppl_2), ii27–ii34. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czx167
Paarima, Y., Kwashie, A. A., Asamani, J. A., & Ofei, A. M. A. (2022). Leadership competencies of first-line nurse managers: A quantitative study. Leadership in Health Services, 35(3), 338–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhs-05-2021-0047
Parayitam, S. (2010). The effect of competence‐based trust between physicians and administrative executives in healthcare on decision outcomes. Management Research Review, 33(2), 174–191. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171011015856
Persson, M. H., Mogensen, C. B., Søndergaard, J., Skjøt-Arkil, H., & Andersen, P. T. (2021). Healthcare professionals’ practice and interactions in older peoples’ cross-sectoral clinical care trajectories when acutely hospitalized – a qualitative observation study. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), Article 944. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06953-9
Prenestini, A., Sartirana, M., & Lega, F. (2021). Involving clinicians in management: assessing views of doctors and nurses on hybrid professionalism in clinical directorates. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), Article 350. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06352-0
Quek, S. J., Thomson, L., Houghton, R., Bramley, L., Davis, S., & Cooper, J. (2021). Distributed leadership as a predictor of employee engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention in UK nursing staff. Journal of Nursing Management, 29(6), 1544–1553. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13321
Quinn, J. F., & Perelli, S. (2016). First and foremost, physicians: the clinical versus leadership identities of physician leaders. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 30(4), 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/jhom-05-2015-0079
Razick, D. I., Monroe, R., Sario, E.-M., Aboukhalil, D., Sinha, N., & Khatri, V. (2024). Does the Chief Executive Officer (CEO)’s educational background have an impact on the academic hospital Leapfrog safety grades?. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.64033
Richter, A., von Thiele Schwarz, U., Lornudd, C., Lundmark, R., Mosson, R., & Hasson, H. (2015). iLead—a transformational leadership intervention to train healthcare managers’ implementation leadership. Implementation Science, 11(1), Article 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0475-6
Sankisa, D., Tatum, R., Saxena, A., Whellan, D. J., Alvarez, R. J., Morris, R. J., & Tchantchaleishvili, V. (2024). Leadership practices, organization structure, and other factors associated with higher 2022–2023 US News and World Report ranking. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 40(16), 3909–3915. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09028-7
Sartirana, M., & Giacomelli, G. (2023). Hybridity enabled: a research synthesis of the enabling conditions for hybrid professionalism in healthcare. Health Services Management Research, 37(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/09514848231151829
Sarto, F., & Veronesi, G. (2016). Clinical leadership and hospital performance: assessing the evidence base. BMC Health Services Research, 16(S2), Article 169. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1395-5
See, H., Shreve, L., Hartzell, S., Daniel, S., & Slonim, A. D. (2022). Comparison of quality measures from US hospitals with physician vs nonphysician chief executive officers. JAMA Network Open, 5(10), e2236621. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.36621
Simonen, O., Viitanen, E., Lehto, J., & Koivisto, A. (2009). Knowledge sources affecting decision‐making among social and health care managers. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 23(2), 183–199. https://doi.org/10.1108/14777260910960920
Simonet, D. (2015b). Post-NPM reforms or administrative hybridization in the French health care system?. International Journal of Public Administration, 38(9), 672–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.955195
Stefl, M. E. (2008). Common competencies for all healthcare managers: The Healthcare Leadership Alliance Model. Journal of Healthcare Management, 53(6), 360–373. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-200811000-00004
Tasi, M. C., Keswani, A., & Bozic, K. J. (2019). Does physician leadership affect hospital quality, operational efficiency, and financial performance?. Health Care Management Review, 44(3), 256–262. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000173
Thoebes, G. P., Porter, T. H., & Peck, J. A. (2023). Physicians as leaders: a systematic review through the lens of expert leadership. Leadership in Health Services, 37(1), 95–111. https://doi.org/10.1108/lhs-02-2023-0008
Tudor Car, L., Kyaw, B. M., & Atun, R. (2018). The role of eLearning in health management and leadership capacity building in health system: a systematic review. Human Resources for Health, 16(1), Article 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12960-018-0305-9
Turner, A. D., Stawicki, S. P., & Guo, W. A. (2017). Competitive advantage of MBA for physician executives: A systematic literature review. World Journal of Surgery, 42(6), 1655–1665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-017-4370-3
Vainieri, M., Ferrè, F., Giacomelli, G., & Nuti, S. (2017). Explaining performance in health care: How and when top management competencies make the difference. Health Care Management Review, 44(4), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1097/hmr.0000000000000164
Warshawsky, N. E., Cramer, E., Grandfield, E. M., & Schlotzhauer, A. E. (2022). The influence of nurse manager competency on practice environment, missed nursing care, and patient care quality: A cross-sectional study of nurse managers in U.S. hospitals. Journal of Nursing Management, 30(6), 1981–1989. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13649
Warshawsky, N., & Cramer, E. (2019). Describing nurse manager role preparation and competency: Findings from a national study. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 49(5), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000000746
Weil, T. P. (2013). Health management education in Europe and in the United States: a comparative review and analysis. Health Services Management Research, 26(2-3), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484813512288
Weiner, B. J., Shortell, S. M., & Alexander, J. (1997). Promoting clinical involvement in hospital quality improvement efforts: the effects of top management, board, and physician leadership. Health services research, 32(4), 491.
Willis, E., Carryer, J., Harvey, C., Pearson, M., & Henderson, J. (2017). Austerity, new public management and missed nursing care in Australia and New Zealand. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(12), 3102–3110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13380
Willis, E., Toffoli, L., Henderson, J., Couzner, L., Hamilton, P., Verrall, C., & Blackman, I. (2015). Rounding, work intensification and new public management. Nursing Inquiry, 23(2), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12116
Witman, Y., Smid, G. A. C., Meurs, P. L., & Willems, D. L. (2010). Doctor in the lead: balancing between two worlds. Organization, 18(4), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508410380762
Woerner, A. J., Greenberg, C. H., Chick, J. F. B., Monroe, E. J., Abad-Santos, M., Kim, H., Lee, E., Makary, M. S., Hage, A. N., Covello, B., & Shin, D. S. (2024). Moral injury among interventional radiologists. Academic Radiology, 31(3), 1122–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.09.015
Xirasagar, S., Samuels, M. E., & Curtin, T. F. (2006). Management training of physician executives, their leadership style, and care management performance: an empirical study. Am J Manag Care, 12(2), 101-8.
Xirasagar, S., Samuels, M. E., & Stoskopf, C. H. (2005). Physician leadership styles and effectiveness: an empirical study. Medical Care Research and Review, 62(6), 720–740. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558705281063
Zweigenthal, V. E. M., Marquez, E., & London, L. (2016). ‘Why do an MPH?’ Motivations and intentions of physicians undertaking postgraduate public health training at the University of Cape Town. Global Health Action, 9(1), Article 32735. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v9.32735