Organizational change and work-related empowerment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study describes the views of multidisciplinary teams on work-related empowerment in a transitional organization. METHODS: The data were collected between September 2003 and January 2004 (n=115) and one year later (n=112) using a self-administered questionnaire consisting of verbal and behavioural items, empowerment outcomes, and factors promoting and impeding empowerment. The target population consisted of all members working in multidisciplinary teams at the Rheumatism Foundation Hospital in Finland. The response rate was 58% at both data collections. The data were analysed statistically using SPSS software. RESULTS: The multidisciplinary teams rated their work empowerment quite highly. The number of empowerment promoting factors was lowest for the category of future orientedness, consisting of continuity of work, opportunities for advancement, and access to information. The number of impeding factors was also highest for the same category of future orientedness, consisting here of organizational bureaucracy and hierarchy, authoritarian leadership, poor access to information, and short working periods. CONCLUSIONS: It is important not to underestimate the impacts of organizational changes: they have a direct effect on the work environment and may contribute to higher rates of dissatisfaction, burnout and absenteeism among health care workers.
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 | 0.001 | 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 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".