A qualitative evaluation of shared leadership barriers, drivers and recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shared leadership is a management model based on the shared governance philosophy. Assumes those individuals or teams performing tasks are best equipped to provide meaningful improvement. The changing image of the current leadership model is one that resides in relationships rather than with a singular person. The key concepts are accountability, partnership, equity, and ownership. When shared leadership was initiated at St Joseph's Health Care, London, Ontario, in 1998, there was a commitment by management and staff to ensure that it was successfully implemented. In order to determine areas for improvement in the implementation process, continual evaluation is necessary. Reports from various staff members, prior to the project, indicated that the shared leadership implementation plan had not been fully realised. Therefore, a qualitative evaluation project, utilising focus groups and interviews, was completed. The purpose of the study was to identify the drivers, as well as the barriers affecting the implementation process. Several recommendations for improving the process were determined by the participants of the study. The result of the project was a collection of four themes, common to the discussions of barriers, drivers and recommendations. The internalisation of the concepts specific to the shared leadership model was found to be vital. The effectiveness of the council framework, including the council structure, processes and membership was also important. Communication of outcomes arising from the council was crucial. The final theme to be identified included those Humanistic Needs that addressed the relationship aspects of this model. Furthermore, the relationship between these themes was explored in the context of the external forces affecting the shared leadership model.
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 | 0.110 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".