Informal Leadership in the Clinical Setting: Occupational Therapist Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Leadership is vital to clinical, organizational, and professional success. This has compelled a high volume of research primarily related to formal leadership concepts. However, as organizations flatten, eliminate departmental structures, or decentralize leadership structures the relevance of informal leaders has markedly enhanced. Methods: Using a qualitative phenomenological methodology consistent with interpretative phenomenological analysis, this study examines the impact of informal leadership in the clinical setting for occupational therapists. Data was collected through the completion of semi-structured interviews with 10 peer-identified informal occupational therapy leaders in Ontario, Canada. Collected data was transcribed verbatim and coded for themes by multiple coders. Several methods were employed to support trustworthiness. Results: The results identify that informal leaders are collaborative, accessible, and considered the “go to” staff. They demonstrate professional competence knowledge, experience, and accountability and are inspirational and creative. Practically, informal leaders organically shape the practice environment while building strength and capacity among their peers. Conclusion: Recommendations for supporting informal leaders include acknowledgement of the role and its centrality, enabling informal leaders time to undertake the role, and supporting consideration of informal leadership concepts at the curriculum and professional level.
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 | 0.021 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".