MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1570191295

Understanding the work of top managers : a shadowing study of Canadian healthcare CEOs

2013· dissertation· en· W1570191295 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bart Johnson

Notice bibliographique

RevueWarwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) · 2013
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueManagement and Organizational Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSituatedWork (physics)Set (abstract data type)Public relationsPrivate sectorPublic sectorHealth careObservational studySociologyPolitical scienceBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceMedicine
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This thesis investigates three research questions about the nature of managerial work:
\n(1) What do we know about the nature of managerial work?; (2) To what extent is the work of top managers in the public and private sectors different?; and (3) What are the ethical implications of using the shadowing method to study top managers?
\nThese three research questions are presented in three research papers.
\nThe first paper titled Historical developments in research on managerial work: A critical overview is a comprehensive literature review, which outlines how research on managing has evolved theoretically, methodologically, and empirically since inception. Identifying a number of gaps in the literature, this paper suggests that much could be gained if contemporary notions of practice are brought into the study of managerial work and increased attention were paid to the sociomaterial, situated, and gendered nature of managerial work.
\nThe second paper in this thesis, Is managing in the public and private sectors really 'different'? A comparative study of managerial work activities is based on the results of an observational study in which four Canadian healthcare CEOs were shadowed for a period of 12 weeks (488 hours). Using a set of structured categories set out by Mintzberg (1973) this paper examines the extent to which managerial work is similar and different in the public and private sectors by comparing results to an investigation conducted in the private sector. Through an analysis of work type, hours, location, activities, and contact patterns, this paper finds that there are
\nrelatively few differences between the work activities of public and private managers at the top manager level. Implications for future research, managerial practice, recruitment, education, and training are theorized.
\nThe third paper in this thesis, Ethical issues and dilemmas in shadowing research: Lessons from the field of managerial work, explores ethical situations that were encountered in this study. Informing research ethics and methodology literature, this paper outlines and critically evaluates the ethical process followed in this study of top managers. Dividing the ethics process into two phases, those addressed by ethics committees (procedural ethics) and those that revealed themselves in the field (ethics in practice), this paper illustrates that while useful, procedural ethics committees are unable to establish ethical practice in and of themselves. In response, this paper poses a number of suggestions as to how ethical practice can be attained through
\nreflexivity and contingency planning.
\nAs a collection of three independent, yet interrelated papers on the nature of managerial work, this thesis contributes to management theory, management practice, and the methodological study of management by: (1) Providing researchers with a new plateau from which managerial work can be studied and theorized; (2)
\nPresenting fresh empirical data and conceptualizations on what top managers do in practice; and (3) Offering insights as to how managerial work can be ethically and practically investigated.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,645
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0030,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,096
Tête enseignante GPT0,265
Écart entre enseignants0,169 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueWarwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick)Même sujetManagement and Organizational StudiesTravaux en français237 207