Developing Canadian physician: the quest for leadership effectiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to discern the physicians' perception of leadership effectiveness in their clinical and non-clinical roles (leadership) by identifying their political skill levels. Design/methodology/approach A sample of 209 Canadian physicians was surveyed using the Political Skills Inventory (PSI) during the period 2012-2014. The PSI was chosen because it assesses leadership effectiveness on four dimensions: social astuteness, interpersonal influence, networking ability and apparent authenticity. Findings Physicians in clinical roles' PSI scores were significantly lower in all four PSI dimensions when compared to all other physicians in non-clinical roles, with the principal difference being in their networking abilities. Practical implications More emphasis is needed on educating and training physicians, specifically in the areas of political skills, in current clinical roles if they are to assume leadership roles and be effective. Originality/value Although this study is located in Canada, the study design and associated findings may have implications to other areas and countries wanting to increase physician leadership effectiveness. Further, replication of this study in other settings may provide insight into the future design of physician leadership training curriculum.
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 | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".