国王基金已经制定了一个伟大的激励计划，以发展国家医疗服务体系内的集体领导(国王基金，2014年)。该项目需要一名领导者(医生)和一名追随者(病人)，目的是共同理解卫生服务面临的质量问题。最终目标是提出一个对医疗系统的所有用户都有利的共享解决方案，无论是作为雇员还是作为服务用户。这背后的想法是消除“英雄领袖”的概念(Gronn, 2002)，并以共享和分布式领导取代它。Cunliffe和Erikson(2011)将关系型领导概念化为“一种与他人相处的方式”。我认为国王基金在他们的项目文献中忽略了这一点。不可否认，国王基金在强调领导力实践的重要性的同时，已经采取了一种集体的领导方式。然而，值得注意的是，领导力实践依赖于人们如何相互联系。因此，尽管国王基金(Kings Fund)提供了这一创新项目，但其执行可能也会面临挑战。虽然关系型领导并不意味着参与者必须是好朋友，但它确实意味着个人应该采取更有意识的方式来处理如何与他人相处，以达到领导和追随的统一。例如，医生可能很难接受他们与病人处于同一水平，相反，病人可能觉得自己在专业能力上不如医生。这意味着“理性领导对于权力差异和人们的物质不平等的影响是天真的”(Jacklin-Jarvis, 2018)。其他因素可能会影响领导力的发展，比如不愿将领导力从组织的高层分配出去。因此，通往集体领导的道路可能并不总是一帆风顺，我对国王基金的建议是，遵循这些理念，领导需要被理解为领导实践和组织干预，而不仅仅是个人行为风格或能力。重点应该放在组织内部的关系、连接、干预和改变组织过程和实践。Huxam和Vangen(2000)认为“结构、流程和人员都有助于跨部门或组织边界的领导”。综上所述，我认为国王基金应该在他们的文献中包含潜在的挑战(权力差异、各种责任和建立信任的困难等等)，以便参与者意识到这些挑战确实存在。此外，它可能是值得的，包括一些提示和提供如何克服这些挑战的帮助。
The Kings Fund have already developed a great incentive programme for the development of a collective leadership within the NHS (The Kings Fund, 2014). The programme takes a leader (doctor) and couples them with a follower (patient) with the aim of creating a shared understanding of the quality problems facing the health service. The end goal is to come up with a shared solution that is of benefit to all users of the healthcare system, whether it be as an employee or a service user. The idea behind this is to dispel the concept of ‘the heroic leader’ (Gronn, 2002) and replace it with shared and distributed leadership. Cunliffe and Erikson (2011) conceptualise relational leadership as ‘a way of being and relating with others’. I think that this is something The Kings Fund have overlooked in their programme literature. Undeniably, The Kings Fund have already adopted a collective approach to leadership whilst emphasising the importance of leadership practice however, it is worth noting that the practice of leadership is reliant on how people relate to one another. So, although The Kings Fund are offering this innovative programme, its execution may not be without its challenges. Whilst relational leadership doesn’t mean that participants have to be great friends, it does imply that individuals should take a more conscious approach to how they relate to each other in the interest of leading and following together as one. For example, it may be difficult for a doctor to accept that they are on the same level as a patient and in contrast, a patient may feel inferior to the doctor in a professional capacity. This implies that ‘rational leadership is naïve about the impact of power differentials and people’s material inequalities’ (Jacklin-Jarvis, 2018). Other factors may impact on the development of leadership such as the hesitance to distribute leadership away from the upper levels of an organisation. The road towards collective leadership may not always run smooth therefore, my advice to the Kings Fund would be that following on from these ideas, leadership needs to be understood in terms of leadership practices and organisational interventions rather than just personal behavioural style or competences. The focus should be on relationships within the organisation, connectivity, intervention and changing the organisational process and practices. Huxam and Vangen (2000) argue that ‘structures, processes and people all contribute to leadership that crosses departmental or organisational boundaries’. With this said, I feel that The Kings Fund should include the potential challenges (power differences, various accountabilities and difficulty building trust to name a few) in their literature so that participants are aware that such challenges do exist. In addition, it may be worthwhile including some tips and offer assistance as to how such challenges can be overcome.