The influence of authentic leadership behaviors on trust and work outcomes of health care staff
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A key element of a healthy work environment is trust: trust between staff and their leaders. Authentic leadership is proposed as the core of effective leadership needed to build trust because of its clear focus on the positive role modeling of honesty, integrity, and high ethical standards in the development of leader‐follower relationships. A model linking authentic leadership behaviors with trust in management, perceptions of supportive groups and work outcomes (including voice or speaking‐up behavior, self‐rated job performance, and burnout) using secondary analysis procedures was examined. The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling in two samples of health care employees from a western Canadian cancer care agency: clinical care providers including nurses, pharmacists, physicians, and other professionals ( N = 147) and nonclinical employees including administrative, support, and research staff ( N = 188). Findings suggest that supportive leader behavior and trust in management are necessary for staff to be willing to voice concerns and offer suggestions to improve the workplace and patient care.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it