MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2067908065 · doi:10.12927/cjnl.2000.16299

Paradigms of Canadian Nurse Managers: Lenses for Viewing Leadership and Management

2000· article· en· W2067908065 sur OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tania King

Notice bibliographique

RevueNursing leadership · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Établissements canadiensLakehead University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésHierarchyPublic relationsHealth careSet (abstract data type)Order (exchange)Leadership developmentNurse AdministratorPsychologySociologyBusinessNursingPolitical scienceMedicineMEDLINEComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To an extent unprecedented in history, healthcare is a complex and human enterprise. Generating the complexity are stakeholders with more diverse perspectives, needs, and agendas, and greater knowledge and vested interest than ever before. Given their pivotal position between the direct-care environment and external stakeholders, nurse managers can no longer rely on the hierarchy, authority, and linear thinking afforded by traditional management; in order to accomplish they must lead people by working through them. Ironically, when needed most, there is a lack of consensus in the literature about what leadership is. In this paper I describe the paradigms for leadership and management held by six Canadian nurse managers who participated in a phenomenological study of leadership. Thinking leaders worked through people to enhance their growth, potential, and accomplishment, participants did so by creating and sustaining inclusive environments, influencing people, and acting in a manner that reflected and supported integrity. Participants thought managers did not focus on people; instead, they carried out routine, procedure-driven tasks to run departmental business. Included in this paper are suggestions about how participants' paradigms might benefit the nursing profession, consumers of care, and healthcare organizations. Although organizations are markedly interested in the development of managers and leaders as decision makers behind accomplishment (Beyers, 1991), managed or pushed organizations will fall behind those that are "led and stretched" (Batten, 1989, p. 3). According to Bennis and Nanus (1985), whereas managers are concerned about efficiency as it relates to set routines, leaders try to be effective by doing what is right. These authors also posited that although management alone may have sufficed in our more predictable past, today's intricate world is not well served by management's linear thinking; its lack of attention to people's diversity; and its dangerous assumptions that problems, goals, alternatives, and consequences are always clear, known, and/or certain, and that necessary information is always on hand and reliable. Perhaps to an extent unprecedented in history healthcare is a human enterprise. Within its dynamic context myriad stakeholders with increasingly diverse perspectives, needs, and agendas, and growing levels of knowledge and vested interest, are involved in unpredictable and uniquely complex situations with uncertain outcomes. These factors orchestrate the intangible mist that healthcare organizations must contend with today. These factors also render traditional how-to manuals obsolete and suggest, instead, that contemporary decision makers in healthcare must be leaders who are comfortable with ambiguity, deftly sensitive and responsive to complexity, and continually looking for ways to work with people to enhance organizational success. Ironically, when we need it most, leadership retains its enigmatic and complex nature (Beyers, 1991); perhaps that is why management is the prevalent practice in organizations (Bennis & Nanus, 1985). Results of one project identified insufficient nursing leadership as a major cause of dissatisfaction among registered nurses (Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia (RNABC), 1989). Hence, our need to grapple with the elusive nature of leadership. In this paper I share the paradigms for leadership and management held by six Canadian nurse managers, and suggest how their paradigms might benefit the nursing profession, and healthcare consumers and organizations.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,252
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,867

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0100,009
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0620,065
Communication savante0,0230,011
Science ouverte0,0050,010
Intégrité de la recherche0,0060,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,161
Tête enseignante GPT0,251
Écart entre enseignants0,090 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
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

Citations9
Publié2000
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueNursing leadershipMême sujetOrganizational Learning and LeadershipTravaux en français237 207