Optimizing health care employees' newly learned leadership behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this qualitative research study is to gain an understanding of the workplace experiences of individuals, employed in health care organizations, a few months after taking leadership development programming, as they endeavor to put into practice the concepts, ideas, and skills they acquired as part of their leadership development programs. Design/methodology/approach Four providers of leadership development programs in the health care arena canvassed their recent “graduates” to participate in the study. A total of 54 participant telephone interviews were transcribed and inductively analyzed. Findings Despite the range of leadership development programs attended, participants were consistent in their enthusiasm for the uptake of leadership knowledge, and the organizations for which they worked were largely consistent in their facilitation of the participants' leadership efforts when they returned to work. Organizational factors that support or impede the practice of effective leadership, and strategies to facilitate supportive organizational responses to aspiring leaders, were identified. Research limitations/implications This study cites benefits realized by health care organizations when participants of leadership development programs return to their workplaces; such benefits are based on the participants' self‐report only. Future research could gain third‐party corroboration concerning specific organizational impacts related to employees attending leadership development programs. Practical implications There are many practices organizations can implement to ensure that full value is realized from employees who have attended leadership development programs. This study provides organizations with qualitative evidence of what supports and hinders employees in practicing newly learned leadership behaviors. Originality/value Little qualitative research exists that provides an overview of the workplace leadership experiences of individuals after taking leadership development programs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".