Authentic leadership: a new theory for nursing or back to basics?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Authentic leadership is an emerging theoretical model purported to focus on the root component of effective leadership. The purpose of this paper is to describe the relevance of authentic leadership to the advancement of nursing leadership practice and research and address the question of whether this is a new theory for leadership or an old one in new packaging. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The paper outlines the origins and key elements of the model, assesses the theoretical, conceptual and measurement issues associated with authentic leadership and compares it with other leadership theories frequently reported in the nursing literature. FINDINGS: The emerging authentic leadership theory holds promise for explaining the underlying processes by which authentic leaders and followers influence work outcomes and organizational performance. Construct validity of authentic leadership has preliminary documentation and a few studies have shown positive relationships between authenticity and trust. Furthermore, the clarity of the authenticity construct and comprehensiveness of the overall theoretical framework provide a fruitful base for future research examining the relationship between authentic leadership and the creation of healthier work environments. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: A clear focus on the relational aspects of leadership, the foundational moral/ethical component, a potential linkage of positive psychological capital to work engagement and the emphasis on leader and follower development in the authentic leadership framework are closely aligned to current and future nursing leadership practice and research priorities for the creation of sustainable changes in nursing work environments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".