Open, transparent management and the media: The managers’ perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Delivery of health care service (HCSs) is a public issue in Sweden. Managers’ decisions and strategies are expected to be open to debate, investigation and scrutiny by the media. There is, however, little knowledge about how managers at local level communicate with the media. The aim of this study is to present an empirically grounded conceptual model of how operative health care managers perceive and handle media communication in open, transparent management of public HCSs.Methods: A grounded theory approach was adopted including in-depth and follow-up interviews with 45 managers, and complemented with open-ended questions that were answered by the majority of municipal top managers of public HCSs in Sweden (n = 161).Results: Communicating with the media were interacting in spite of unequal logics and conditions regarding openness in communicating. In managers response to media misrepresentation (inaccurate, narrow and skewed reporting) of the often complex and value-laden issues of HCSs they put highlighted dignity, correctness regarding facts, and protection of integrity. Managers’ approaches were to mobilize individual and organizational resources in order to support openness and reduce uncertainties, through crafting managerial hardiness and organizational robustness, and over the longer term, by building authentic openness through awareness, control and acceptance of the conditions.Conclusions: In conclusion, handling the media can be challenging owing to different logics for reporting, but the media plays a vitally important role in the transparency of the management. Dealing with the pressure of media attention can either have negative consequences or contribute to more open and authentic internal and external communication.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".