MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003688017 · doi:10.1108/17511871111151090

Optimizing health care employees' newly learned leadership behaviors

2011· article· en· W2003688017 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in health services · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHuman Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeadership developmentQualitative researchLeadership stylePublic relationsHealth careNeuroleadershipLeadership studiesOriginalityPsychologyValue (mathematics)EnthusiasmShared leadershipNursingMedicinePolitical scienceSociologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.378
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.019 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it