Authentic leadership practices informed by a rural hospital study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore perceptions of work environment characteristics across employee groups in a rural hospital to determine if authentic leadership and management practices were perceived to be actualized in the organization. Creating a healthy work environment through authentic leadership practices is critical to sustaining care quality improvements (QIs) and patient safety. In light of fewer financial and educational resources, an academic-practice partnership provides evidencebased support for administrators in rural hospitals. This mixed methods study involved the following measures: 1) Descriptive cross-sectional survey of hospital employees regarding work environment characteristics (N = 139/188; 74% response rate), yielding statistical power of .95, and 2) multiple qualitative focus groups with employees (N = 37) to explore contextual factors potentially influencing perceptions of work environment. There were statistically significant differences among perceived levels of vitality for hospital administrative staff compared to clinical and ancillary staff (p < .000 – p < .026). Thematic content of qualitative data revealed issues regarding a perceived lack of authentic leadership and management behaviors. Adopting best practices related to QIs may first require a paradigm shift by hospital leadership and management through conscious promotion of mutual trust and healthy work behaviors. An academic-practice partnership can provide data-based insights into work environment characteristics that may need attention so that the hospital administrator may empower staff-driven, collaborative QIs from an evidence-based stance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".