Developing a Framework for Understanding Organizational Culture in Healthcare Organizations from a Complex Adaptive Systems Perspective
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Most conceptual models of organizations, including the dominant frameworks for understanding and assessing organizational culture, rely on a mechanistic view of organizational dynamics. Although popular, the mechanistic view is inherently simplistic and fails to address the complexity of contemporary organizations (Boan & Funderburk, 2003; Clancy, 2007; Clancy, 2007; McDaniel & Driebe, 2001; Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001; Rowe & Hogarth, 2005; Seel, 2000, Seel, 2005). This research project attempted to provide a more comprehensive conceptual tool through developing and assessing a framework based on the key properties of the complex adaptive systems perspective. The new Complex Adaptive Systems – Organizational Culture (CAS-OC) Framework developed in this research was then assessed with relation to use in health care organizations. This framework was developed through a mixed methods research design consisting of three phases. Phase one involved a systematic scoping review of the organizational culture and complex adaptive systems literature. The review of the organizational culture literature resulted in identification and screening of 12,154 peer-reviewed articles and 1,660 grey literature documents. A total of 215 documents met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed resulting in identification of 14 definitions, 26 frameworks and 123 components of organizational culture. The review of the complex adaptive systems literature resulted in confirmation of the five key properties of complex adaptive systems discussed in the literature. Phase two involved a Delphi study conducted with international organizational culture experts. These experts identified 68 components of organizational culture. Based on their conceptual similarity, these components were combined into 17 factors of organizational culture. The results from phases one and two were added to the newly confirmed list of key properties of complex adaptive systems to inform development of the new CAS-OC Framework. Phase three was the assessment phase. The new CAS-OC Framework was presented to professionals in Alberta healthcare organizations for review and assessment as a potential tool. Their assessment confirmed the categories and components already incorporated in the framework and identified 10 additional components they wanted to see included in the framework. These additional components were examined and incorporated into the new framework if they were not already included. Overall, the assessment participants concluded that the framework was feasible, appropriate, meaningful and effective for use in healthcare organizations in Alberta, specifically Primary Care Networks in Alberta. This research contributed to the body of knowledge in four areas. First, this research examined organizational culture using a phased, mixed method approach. Second, this research confirmed the key properties of complex adaptive systems theory discussed in the complexity literature. Third, this research introduced a complex adaptive systems–based definition and framework for understanding organizational culture in Alberta health care organizations to the current body of knowledge. Finally, this research assessed the Feasibility, Appropriateness, Meaningfulness, and Effectiveness of the CAS-OC Framework from a usability perspective. The research concluded with recommendations for future research.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,019 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,010 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».