An Integrated Approach to Change Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leading change has become one of the essential core competencies of health professionals today. Since 2001, the authors have been the key designers and facilitators of the Dorothy Wylie Nursing Leadership Institute (DMW-NLI). The background, key characteristics and benefits of the DMW-NLI have been described in detail elsewhere (Simpson et al. 2002). One of the Institute's key features is that participants bring a change initiative that they wish to pursue and - during their time on site - we assist them in developing that project to the point where it has a strong chance of success. When we incorporated this aspect into the DMW-NLI program, we believed that opportunity to apply the learning of the Institute to a desired initiative in the home setting would add significant value, not only to the participants, but also to their sponsoring organizations. Further, it was our hope that we could develop a methodology to advance the change initiative, which would be a valuable tool that participants could use in future change projects.As we looked to the literature, we found no shortage of articles on change theory, as well as numerous tools and techniques for project management. However, we did not find one single approach or methodology that we felt was comprehensive yet concise enough to serve as a practical guide for those who wish to advance a change initiative in their practice settings today. Therefore, we developed an integrated conceptual framework and methodology for leading change initiatives, building on selected current and classic theories of change that are relevant today. Both the framework and methodology have proven very hardy, and will, we believe, be of interest to nurse leaders and other health professionals in leadership roles. This paper will provide a brief overview of relevant background literature on leading change initiatives, introduce the DMW-NLI Change Leadership conceptual framework, describe a number of activities that support the framework, and conclude with a summary of its impact to date and implications for leaders and managers.
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 | 0.032 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".