Impact of Leadership Style and Structural Empowerment on Nursing Group Power in ICU Settings: A Cross‐Sectional Study

ABSTRACT

Background

Power is an essential resource for nursing teams, especially in the complex high‐risk environment in intensive care units (ICUs), where effective collaboration, prompt intervention and comprehensive patient care are vital. However, the factors influencing nursing group power in ICUs remain largely unexplored.

Aims

To examine the association between head nurse leadership styles, structural empowerment and nursing group power among nurses employed in ICU settings.

Study Design

This cross‐sectional study employed a convenience sample of 120 registered nurses from various ICUs within a general hospital (response rate of 89.5%). Data were collected between July and August 2024 through self‐administered questionnaires.

Results

Unlike other leadership styles examined, transformational leadership uniquely demonstrated consistent positive relationships with all six components of structural empowerment and nursing group power. Moreover, transformational leadership by the head nurse (β = 0.262, p = 0.004), access to opportunities (β = 0.184, p = 0.021), access to information (β = 0.244, p = 0.004) and levels of informal power (β = 0.160, p = 0.047) were all positively associated with nursing group power, collectively explaining 48.3% of the variance.

Conclusion

Our results emphasise the importance of transformational leadership, access to opportunities and information and informal power as contributors to nursing group power.

Relevance to Clinical Practice

Healthcare organisations should prioritise fostering transformational leadership skills among ICU head nurses and strengthening structural empowerment frameworks. This involves implementing targeted leadership training programmes, enhancing access to professional development opportunities and information resources and fostering informal power networks. These actions can enhance nurses' collective power, improve collaboration and optimise team dynamics in ICUs, ultimately contributing to better patient care and organisational goal achievement.

Impact Statements.

• What is known about the topic

  • ○
    Power is an essential resource for nursing teams, particularly in high‐risk environments like intensive care units (ICUs).
  • ○
    Transformational leadership and structural empowerment are theorised to influence nursing group power but are not extensively studied in ICU settings.
• What this paper adds

  • ○
    Transformational leadership by ICU head nurses enhances nursing group power, especially when supported by access to opportunities, information and informal power.
  • ○
    Transformational leadership and key elements of structural empowerment significantly contribute to explaining 48.3% of the variance in nursing group power.
  • ○
    Fostering transformational leadership and strengthening empowerment frameworks can improve team dynamics and thereby promote patient outcomes in ICUs.

1. Introduction and Background

King (1981) [1] defined ‘power’ as the ability of an individual or group to achieve their goals. Sieloff (1995) [2] built on this framework to develop the Theory of Group Power within Organisations, which posits that a professional group's power and empowerment are independent of other groups within an organisation. Within this context, nursing group power refers to the collective ability of nurses to influence decision‐making, exercise autonomy and collaborate effectively to achieve shared goals. It encompasses control over their professional domain, advocacy for patient care improvements and participation in policy development, all of which contribute to a supportive work environment and elevated standards of care [3].

In ICUs, nursing group power fosters autonomy, enabling nurses to make independent decisions based on professional judgement and ethics [4]. This empowerment enhances collaboration with physicians, creating a safer work environment and improving patient outcomes [5]. ICU nurses play a visible and influential role, with their expertise recognised by physicians, families and administrators [6].

However, while power is theoretically regarded as a positive force, the complex real‐world dynamics of ICU nursing challenge this perspective. In practice, ICU nurses often struggle with limited autonomy in decision‐making and must navigate conflicting demands from doctors, administrators and hospital policies, which can hinder their ability to provide optimal care [7]. As a result, many ICU nurses experience feelings of helplessness and often exhibit behaviours characteristic of an oppressed and powerless group [8, 9, 10]. These include moral distress from ‘unauthorised responsibility’, care rationing and neglect due to systemic pressures and habit‐oriented care that may compromise patient needs [11]. Nurses may also engage in inappropriate delegation of tasks and experience emotional exhaustion leading to burnout [8, 12]. The psychological impact can be severe, with high rates of anxiety and depression, leading to silence, non‐reporting of errors and work−life balance struggles that ultimately affect both nurse well‐being and patient care quality [13].

Factors contributing to this sense of powerlessness include hierarchical hospital structures, lack of autonomy in decision‐making, limited involvement in policy development, inadequate resources and a perceived lack of respect from other healthcare professionals [8, 14, 15, 16]. In addition, there is evidence that head nurse leadership style [17, 18] as well as structural empowerment [19, 20], can influence the work environment and nurses' sense of power.

Each of the various leadership styles identified in nursing, including in ICUs, impacts nursing practice and outcomes differently [21, 22, 23]. For example, transformational leadership, which is characterised by inspirational motivation, individualised consideration, idealised influence and intellectual stimulation [24], has been associated with increased job satisfaction and improved patient care [23, 24, 25]. In ICUs, transformational leadership fosters a culture of excellence by inspiring nurses to achieve higher standards of care, encouraging innovative problem‐solving and providing individualised support to team members [21, 22]. This leadership style promotes adaptability, critical thinking and proactive decision‐making, enabling ICU nurses to respond effectively to complex clinical situations. By empowering nurses with autonomy and fostering collaboration, transformational leaders contribute to both job satisfaction and improved patient outcomes. Additionally, the emphasis on mentorship and professional development promotes a more engaged and resilient nursing workforce, which is essential in the demanding ICU environment [26].

In contrast, transactional leadership in ICU settings which is characterised by a structured and directive approach, emphasises the relationship between leaders and nurses [25]. Transactional ICU leaders establish clear expectations, set defined goals and implement a system of rewards and consequences designed to drive performance and adherence to protocols [27]. This leadership style is particularly effective in maintaining organisational efficiency, ensuring compliance with strict clinical guidelines and managing high‐pressure situations that require immediate decision‐making. However, while transactional leadership provides stability and consistency, it may limit opportunities for professional growth, innovation and the development of autonomous decision‐making among ICU nurses. The efficacy of this strategy is most pronounced in crisis scenarios or environments where rapid execution of standardised procedures is critical [28].

Passive‐avoidant leadership, also known as laissez‐faire leadership, is characterised by minimal decision‐making, where leaders delay actions, avoid responsibility and provide little guidance [25]. Traditionally, this leadership style is linked to negative outcomes, such as lower job satisfaction, increased burnout and reduced patient care quality [29]. However, it has a heterogeneous impact on ICU nurses' sense of power. Less experienced nurses may feel unsupported, while highly skilled ICU nurses may perceive an opportunity for greater autonomy and decision‐making authority [30]. This is particularly relevant in ICU settings, where rapid problem‐solving and independent judgement are essential. Thus, while passive‐avoidant leadership may disempower less experienced teams, it can enhance professional independence and reinforce nurses' sense of power in highly skilled ICU settings [22].

Structural empowerment, as defined by Kanter's theory (1993) [31], refers to the ability to mobilise resources and achieve objectives through access to opportunities, resources, information and support [17]. In ICU nursing, this includes critical components such as professional growth opportunities (e.g., specialised training and leadership pathways) and access to essential tools and equipment (e.g., adequate staffing ratios and advanced medical technology), as well as to current patient data and treatment protocols. Access to support also refers to guidance from supervisors and peers, possibly through mentorship programs. Formal power derived from the position in the organisational hierarchy allows nurses to influence unit policies, while informal power comes from relationships within the organisation that foster collaboration with other healthcare professionals [31].

Given the unique and challenging nature of ICU environments, where nurses provide care to critically ill patients in high‐stress situations requiring quick decision‐making and advanced clinical skills, it is essential to explore how leadership style and structural empowerment contribute to nursing group power. This understanding is crucial for improving collaborative practices, enhancing patient care and outcomes, promoting nurse satisfaction and retention and increasing overall team effectiveness in these complex healthcare settings.

1.1. Aims and Objectives of Study

The primary aims of the current study were:

1. To examine the relationship between head nurse leadership styles (transformational, transactional and passive avoidant), components of structural empowerment (opportunity, resources, information, support, formal power and informal power) and nursing group power in ICU settings.

2. To identify the key factors associated with nursing group power in ICU settings.

2. Design and Methods

2.1. Settings and Sample

This cross‐sectional study comprised a convenience sample of 120 registered nurses (RNs), employed in ICUs in a medical centre in central Israel.

2.2. Data Collection

The questionnaire was distributed manually to ICU nurses with whom the authors had prior professional or personal interactions. A total of 134 RNs received the questionnaire. Participants were selected based on the criteria of having at least 1 year of experience in their current ICU role and not holding a managerial position. Data collection took place between July and August 2024. Before completing the questionnaire, participants provided written informed consent after receiving a detailed explanation of the study objectives, including assurances of anonymity and confidentiality. To further safeguard participant privacy and minimise response bias, completed questionnaires were placed in sealed envelopes by participants and were collected by the authors 1 week after distribution.

2.3. Sample Size Calculation

The sample size for the study was determined using G*Power software [32]. For the linear regression analysis, with a small to medium effect size of 0.07, α = 0.05, power = 0.80 and up to 10 predictors, the minimum required sample size was calculated to be 115 participants.

2.4. Data Collection Tools

To ensure content validity of the research instrument, we employed expert review, Content Validity Index (CVI) assessment and a pilot study. Three experienced ICU nurses reviewed the questionnaire for clarity, relevance and comprehensiveness, leading to several revisions. The CVI assessment yielded a score of 0.92, confirming strong validity. A subsequent pilot study with five ICU nurses designed to evaluate clarity, readability and usability, confirmed the relevance of the questionnaire, which required no major modifications.

Data collection used a four‐part questionnaire, with 106 questions.

Part I: Socio‐demographic and occupational characteristics consists of 15 items related to age, sex, familial status, nursing seniority, seniority in the ICU field, academic degree and religion.

Part II: Leadership style of head nurse was assessed using the short‐form Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ‐5X) [31], adapted for Hebrew by Schwarzwald et al. (2001) [33]. The tool consists of 36 items measuring managerial behaviours across three subscales: transformational leadership (including idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration), transactional leadership (managed by active exception and contingent rewards) and passive leadership (managed by passive exception and laissez‐faire). Nurses rated each item on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from ‘never’ (1) to ‘frequently’ (5) based on their perceptions of their head nurse's actions. The final scores represent the mean of the relevant items and each leadership style exhibited a high internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficients ranging from 0.76 to 0.95). A licence for use of this instrument was purchased for 134 participants in the current study.

Part III: Perceptions of Structural Empowerment were assessed using the short‐version CWEQ‐II (Conditions for Work Effectiveness Questionnaire‐II) [31]. This 19‐item instrument measures nurses' perceptions of access to resources, opportunity, information, support and formal and informal power across six subscales. Nurses rated each item on a 5‐point Likert scale from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘to a great extent’ (5), according to the situation in their current workplace. Subscale scores were calculated by averaging the item score, with higher values indicating stronger perceptions of structural empowerment. The tool was adapted for Hebrew by Ganz et al. (2013) [34]. The CWEQ‐II demonstrated good internal consistency in this study, with Cronbach's α values for the subscales between 0.74 and 0.94.

Part IV: Nursing group power was measured by the Sieloff‐King Assessment of Group Outcome Attainment within Organisations (SKAGOAO) [35]. This served as the dependent variable in the study. The questionnaire assesses how well a nursing group, as a collective, can influence and attain desired outcomes within an organisational setting. SKAGOAO has 36 items with 8 subscales (resources, communication competency, empowerment perspective, goal/outcome competency, group leader's empowerment competency, group power, position and role). The nurses were asked to rate each item on a 5‐point Likert scale ranging from ‘entirely disagree’ (1) to ‘entirely agree’ (5). The results were represented by the summed score (range 36–180), where a higher score indicates stronger perceptions of group empowerment. The final version was subjected to translation and back translation and pretesting before distribution to the study population. The analysis exhibited high internal consistency (Cronbach's α coefficient was 0.89). Written permission was obtained from the developers of the CWEQ‐II Questionnaire by the first author.

2.5. Data Analysis

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K–S) and Shapiro–Wilk tests were used to verify the normality of the data, as confirmed by the results (K–S statistic = 0.052, p = 0.200; W = 0.991, p = 0.594). Additionally, skewness (−0.090) and kurtosis (0.028) values fell within the acceptable range, further supporting the assumption of normality and the suitability of parametric methods for sample analysis [36]. Continuous variables are summarised as minimum, maximum, mean, standard deviation, while categorical variables are presented as frequencies with percentages. Univariate analyses included a bivariate Pearson correlation to explore the relationship between nurse leadership styles, components of structural empowerment and other continuous variables. An independent t‐test was performed to assess differences in group power between male and female nurses, nurses who had or had not completed post‐basic certification and staff nurses versus clinical instructors. Additionally, a one‐way ANOVA was conducted to examine differences in group power based on work unit, marital status, professional education, religion and religiosity. Only covariates that were significantly associated with perceptions of group power were included in the final multivariate analysis. A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess the effects of the independent variables (nursing experience in the current ICU, transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, access to opportunities, access to information, access to support, access to resources, level of formal power and level of informal power) on the prediction of nursing group power. Testing linear regression assumptions revealed variance inflation factors (VIFs) ranging from 1.042 to 1.778 and tolerance values between 0.533 and 0.960, indicating no multicollinearity concerns, as supported by a Durbin‐Watson statistic of 1.730. Homoscedasticity was examined using normal probability plots of standardised residuals, which showed no violations [36]. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05 and all data analyses were conducted using SPSS version 29.

2.6. Ethical and Research Approvals

The research was approved on July 16, 2024, by the Tel Aviv University Ethics Committee (N 0008844‐1). The study's objectives were explained to the nurses, who were assured that their anonymity would be preserved and that the collected data would remain confidential and be used solely for this research. Both oral and written consent for participation was obtained from all nurses.

3. Results

3.1. General Characteristics of the Study Population (Table 1)

TABLE 1.

General characteristics of the study population (N = 120).

Characteristics
Age (years)
Mean ± SD	42.5 ± 10.0
Min–Max	25–63
Sex, n (%)
Male	23 (19.2)
Female	97 (80.8)
Marital status, n (%)
Single	10 (8.3)
Married	90 (75.0)
Divorced/widowed	20 (16.7)
Country of birth, n (%)
Israel	55 (45.8)
The former Soviet Union	50 (41.7)
Other	15 (12.5)
Religion, n (%)
Jewish	95 (79.2)
Muslim	12 (10.0)
Christian	13 (10.8)
Religiosity, n (%)
Secular	82 (68.3)
Traditional	25 (20.8)
Religious	13 (10.9)
Job title, n (%)
Staff nurse	98 (81.7)
Clinical instructor	22 (18.3)
Scope of employment, n (%) a
Full	61 (50.8)
Part‐time	59 (49.2)
Professional education, n (%)
Registered nurse	36 (30.0)
Registered nurse with a BSN	58 (48.3)
Registered nurse with a MSN or higher degree	26 (21.7)
Intensive care unit, n (%)
General	43 (35.8)
Cardiac	18 (15.0)
Surgical	20 (16.7)
Neurosurgery	20 (16.7)
Post‐anaesthesia	19 (15.8)
Post‐basic certification in intensive care, n (%)
Yes	107 (89.2)
No	13 (10.8)
Experience in nursing (years)
Mean ± SD	17.8 ± 16.5
Min‐Max	4–41
Experience in the present ICU (years)
Mean ± SD	10.6 ± 7.0
Min‐Max	2–32

^a Full‐time: Employment scope of four to five shifts per week; Part‐time: Employment scope of two to three shifts per week.

Of the 134 nurses invited to participate, 120 fully completed the questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 89.5%. The majority of nurses (80.8%) were female, with a mean age of 42.5 years (SD = 10.0, range 25–63). Most participants identified as Jewish (79.2%) and secular (68.3%). The average experience in nursing was 17.8 years (SD = 16.5) and the mean duration of experience in the current ICU was 10.6 years (SD = 7.0). Over half the nurses (70.0%) held at least a bachelor's degree, with approximately one‐fifth (21.7%) holding a master's degree. Most nurses (89.2%) had completed advanced intensive care training (post‐basic certification in intensive care). The most common role was that of staff nurse (81.7%) and half the nurses (50.8%) were employed full‐time (four to five shifts per week).

3.2. Univariate Analysis

Pearson correlations and means for the research variables are presented in Table 2. The results indicate that both transformational and transactional leadership styles are significantly and positively associated with nursing group power (r = 0.53; r = 0.21; p < 0.05), suggesting that higher levels of these leadership styles are linked to greater power within nursing groups. Additionally, transformational leadership style is significantly and negatively correlated with passive‐avoidant leadership style (r = −0.47, p < 0.01).

TABLE 2.

Means and standard deviations of all variables described in the study.

Research variables	Mean (SD)	Scale	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Transformational leadership style	3.32 (0.89)	1–5	0.27 b	−0.47 b	0.30 b	0.40 b	0.56 b	0.51 b	0.30 b	0.39 b	0.53 a
2. Transactional leadership style	2.56 (0.58)	1–5	1	−0.01	0.14	0.32 b	0.32 b	0.25 b	0.27 b	0.19 a	0.21 a
3. Passive‐avoidant leadership style	2.29 (1.05)	1–5		1	−0.13	−0.10	−0.17	−0.20 a	0.01	−0.01	−0.16
4. Access to opportunities	3.84 (0.78)	1–5			1	0.33 b	0.38 b	0.29 b	0.20 a	0.37 b	0.45 b
5. Access to information	2.08 (0.99)	1–5				1	0.46 b	0.40 b	0.34 b	0.19 a	0.49 b
6. Access to support	3.07 (1.00)	1–5					1	0.51 b	0.38 b	0.34 b	0.46 b
7. Access to resources	2.94 (0.86)	1–5						1	0.31 b	0.38 b	0.49 b
8. Level of formal power	2.23 (0.85)	1–5							1	0.21 a	0.30 b
9. Level of informal power	4.55 (0.66)	1–5								1	0.39 b
10. Nursing group power	127.97 (18.74)	36–180									1

^a p < 0.05.

^b p < 0.01.

All the factors related to structural empowerment are positive and significantly positively correlated with nursing group power, which highlights the importance of these elements in enhancing the sense of power within nursing groups.

Other univariate analyses yielded no significant differences in group power based on sex, job title, scope of employment or completion of post‐basic certification. Similarly, there were no significant differences in group power across work unit, marital status, professional education, religion or religiosity.

3.3. Factors Associated With Nursing Group Power

A multivariate linear regression model examined how nursing experience in the ICU, transformational and transactional leadership styles, access to opportunities, information, support and resources and the levels of formal and informal power contribute to nursing group power. The results (Table 3) indicate that three out of six components of structural empowerment, namely access to opportunities (β = 0.184, p = 0.021), access to information (β = 0.244, p = 0.004) and level of informal power (β = 0.160, p = 0.047), along with transformational leadership style (β = 0.262, p = 0.004), are significantly and positively associated with nursing group power (F(9, 119) = 11.425, p < 0.001). This model explains 48.3% of the variance in nursing group power (R ² = 0.483; adjusted R ² = 0.441).

TABLE 3.

Regression coefficients from the multivariate linear regression model designed to estimate the nursing group power (N = 120).

Variable a	Β	SE	β	t	p
Nursing experience in the current ICU	0.219	0.188	0.081	1.164	0.247
Transformational leadership style	5.612	1.924	0.262	2.917	0.004
Transactional leadership style	−1.676	3.078	−0.041	−0.544	0.058
Access to opportunities	4.366	1.865	0.184	2.342	0.021
Access to information	4.343	1.485	0.244	2.924	0.004
Access to support	0.440	1.733	0.024	0.254	0.800
Access to resources	3.167	1.920	0.146	1.649	0.102
Level of formal power	0.043	1.773	0.002	0.025	0.980
Level of informal power	3.769	1.873	0.160	2.012	0.047

Note: The bold values indicate the statistical significance of p ‐ values.

^a Continuous variables.

4. Discussion

The study was designed to explore the factors contributing to nursing group power, specifically focusing on the impact of head nurse leadership styles and organisational empowerment components. According to the available evidence, this is the first study to investigate such associations among nurses working in various ICUs.

One of the key findings of the current study is that, unlike transactional and passive‐avoidant leadership styles, the transformational leadership style of head nurses, along with access to opportunities and information and levels of informal power, is positively associated with nursing group power, collectively explaining almost 50% of the variance. This significant relationship highlights the unique impact of transformational leadership and specific structural empowerment elements on enhancing the collective power of nursing teams in ICU settings. This aligns with previous research that described the positive impact of transformational leadership in nursing practice [21, 22, 23, 25]. When head nurses demonstrate transformational leadership by inspiring, motivating, encouraging intellectual stimulation and providing individualised consideration, they create an environment where nurses feel valued, supported and encouraged to take initiative [21]. This supportive environment enhances nurses' sense of collective power, ultimately fostering a culture of empowerment within the team.

Research in Canadian healthcare settings has shown that transformational leaders facilitate open communication, which encourages nurses to express their ideas and contribute to decision‐making processes [18]. This inclusive approach not only strengthens individual confidence but also builds a cohesive team dynamic, enhancing overall group efficacy. Moreover, the characteristics of transformational leadership—such as idealised influence and inspirational motivation—encourage nurses to take on leadership roles themselves, thereby further amplifying the power dynamics within the nursing group [23, 37]. As nurses engage more actively in their work and embrace collaborative efforts, the collective influence of the nursing team grows, positively impacting organisational goals related to patient outcomes and overall healthcare quality [25].

Our results also emphasise the contribution of structural empowerment factors, specifically access to opportunities and information and informal power, to nursing group power. These findings align closely with Kanter's theory of structural empowerment, which posits that access to organisational structures like professional development opportunities and information and informal networks is fundamental to fostering employee empowerment [18]. In the context of ICU nurses, the complexity of their work necessitates high levels of structural empowerment to meet the demands of critical care. Without access to opportunities for professional growth and development, including advanced training, leadership pathways and career advancement, ICU nurses may feel stagnant, which can negatively impact their job satisfaction and overall sense of empowerment [18, 37]. In addition, access to information enables ICU nurses to acquire specialised skills and monitor up‐to‐date clinical protocols, patient care guidelines and new developments in critical care [38]. When all nurses have access to high‐quality information, it creates a collective knowledge base that strengthens the overall group expertise [39]. Such well‐informed nurses are better equipped to influence and participate in clinical decisions, thereby increasing the group's collective influence, including the ability to advocate for their patients and their profession within the healthcare system [38, 39]. Finally, research conducted in Canada has shown that access to information fosters autonomy by allowing nurses to act more independently and reducing reliance on other healthcare professionals [31].

Beyond access to opportunities and information, interpersonal relationships and networks also play a critical role in nursing group power. Such informal power allows nurses to influence decision‐making and participate in policy development beyond their formal roles [40]. In the ICU, experienced nurses often take on informal leadership roles, fostering a supportive and cohesive culture by mentoring less experienced colleagues and facilitating communication across professional boundaries. This has also been observed in research conducted in the United Kingdom and highlights the importance of informal leadership in promoting effective team dynamics and collaborative practice [41]. Notably, the flexible, context‐dependent nature of informal power enables ICU nurses to navigate the dynamics of persistent power imbalance and enhance their collective influence on patient care [42].

Our findings of a non‐significant association between access to support, resources and formal power and nursing group power suggest the presence of a different perspective on empowerment structures that may be specific to ICU environments. While access to support, resources and formal power is traditionally viewed as critical for empowering nurses in general healthcare settings, as demonstrated in studies conducted in Jordan [20] and Canada [31], our results suggest that ICU nurses may rely more on informal networks, knowledge sharing and professional development opportunities to assert collective influence in navigating complex patient care. This suggests a need for healthcare organisations to rethink how they empower nurses in critical care settings.

4.1. Limitations

This study has notable limitations. Firstly, it was conducted at a single medical centre in central Israel, potentially limiting the generalisability of the findings. Secondly, the cross‐sectional design may introduce biases such as recall bias or temporal ambiguity. Furthermore, other factors that may influence nursing group power in ICUs, such as professional autonomy, role clarity and organisational trust, were not examined. Additionally, this study did not include mediating analysis, which could have provided deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying the relationships between variables. To address these limitations, future research should consider a mixed‐methods approach, incorporating qualitative data to provide a more comprehensive understanding of nurses' experiences and explore potential mediating effects that may shape nursing group power in ICUs.

4.2. Implications and Recommendations for Practice

We recommend prioritising leadership development programmes that cultivate transformational leadership skills among head nurses, while strengthening structural empowerment frameworks by improving access to professional development opportunities, essential resources and information. In addition, it would be useful to foster informal power networks that encourage collaboration and peer mentorship. By emphasising these aspects, organisations can develop more effective healthcare teams who are able to navigate the complexities of modern healthcare effectively and achieve their organisational goals.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the complex nature of nursing group power within the ICUs, revealing significant associations with positive factors such as transformational leadership, access to opportunities, knowledge and informal power. Together, these elements create a supportive environment that strengthens nurses' ability to lead, collaborate and contribute effectively to achieving organisational goals.

Ethics Statement

The research was approved on July 16, 2024, by the Tel Aviv University Ethics Committee (No. 0008844‐1).

Consent

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Kadosh E. and Rozani V., “Impact of Leadership Style and Structural Empowerment on Nursing Group Power in ICU Settings: A Cross‐Sectional Study,” Nursing in Critical Care 30, no. 5 (2025): e70140, 10.1111/nicc.70140.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.