Leadership Practice, Organizational Culture and New Managerialism: Strengths, Challenges, Variations and Contradictions in Three Children's Service Agencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract \nThe purpose of this research study was to explore how social work leaders conceptualized and practiced leadership and how their leadership practice influenced, and was shaped by, organizational culture. The relevance and viability of a participatory leadership approach and a collaborative learning culture were also explored. As well, leadership satisfaction and development and the impact of external changes were sought. A qualitative research approach, multiple case study and multi-method design were employed. Forty-one directors and supervisors in three children’s mental health and child welfare agencies in Ontario participated in this study. Research methods included interviews, focus groups, observations and document review, with thematic data analysis, member checking and triangulation of methods to develop emerging themes and strengthen findings. Overall findings were mixed. On the positive side, directors and supervisors appeared knowledgeable about ideal leadership practices. On the negative side, the external context was having a major impact on leadership practice. Even with this negative influence, the leadership practices and organizational cultures varied among the three agencies. Together, these findings revealed the constant change and adaptation required by social work leaders to ensure organizational survival. Competing forces included business skills vs. quality client services; risk taking and innovation vs. ministry requirements; new initiatives vs. limited resources; community collaboration vs. competition; and sector leadership development vs. lack of investment. These contradictions raise essential questions about the feasibility of current ministry strategic directions and the unintended consequences on multiple levels that may result. Further research is warranted to explore leadership strategies that simultaneously challenge these contradictions while operating within them.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".