Worklife Improvement and Leadership Development study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to increasing recognition of the importance of quality health care work environments, the Alberta Cancer Board initiated a province-wide leadership development program to plan for organizational change through a series of stages. In 2004, the Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) was implemented to facilitate organizational learning using a cohort-based leadership intervention based on a communities of practice framework. PURPOSES: The aim of the Worklife Improvement and Leadership Development study was to examine both the outcomes and experiences of participants of the LDI program to better understand leadership development, implementation, and its impact on worklife quality among 5 cohorts of health care managers and staff at the Alberta Cancer Board. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study used both structured survey and interview methods, using a pretest-intervention-posttest quasi-experiment without a control group design, to assess the effects of LDI on worklife of leaders and staff. Surveys included the Leadership Practices Inventory and Areas of Worklife Scale, which looked at meaningfulness of work and organizational engagement. Interviews and focus group data provided a more detailed description of the experience of leadership development and perceptions of organizational worklife. FINDINGS: The study revealed layers of information about the complexity of individual and collective leadership in a cohort-based design, perceptions of leadership initiatives, organizational worklife, and planned organizational change. Our findings suggest that early changes in how leaders reflected on their own skills and practices (Leading Self) were positive; however, growing disengagement as the LDI continued was evident in the focus group data, particularly when change in behavior of others was not perceived to be evident. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To support the effectiveness and success of a leadership initiative, managers and administrators need to implement strategies designed to help leaders grow and cope with ongoing flux of organizational change and stagnation.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".