The Influence of Authentic Leadership and Empowerment on New-Graduate Nurses’ Perceptions of Interprofessional Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine new-graduate nurses' perceptions of the influence of authentic leadership and structural empowerment on the quality of interprofessional collaboration in healthcare work environments. BACKGROUND: Although the challenges associated with true interprofessional collaboration are well documented, new-graduate nurses may feel particularly challenged in becoming contributing members. Little research exists to inform nurse leaders' efforts to facilitate effective collaboration in acute care settings. METHODS: A predictive nonexperimental design was used to test a model integrating authentic leadership and workplace empowerment as resources that support interprofessional collaboration. RESULTS: Multiple regression analysis revealed that 24% of the variance in perceived interprofessional collaboration was explained by unit-leader authentic leadership and structural empowerment (R = 0.24, F = 29.55, P = .001). Authentic leadership (β = .294) and structural empowerment (β = .288) were significant independent predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that authentic leadership and structural empowerment may promote interprofessional collaborative practice in new nurses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".