Structure of health-care dyad leadership: an organization’s experience
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to explore the structural aspects (roles, responsibilities and reporting) of dyad leadership in one health-care organization (HCO). Design/methodology/approach The perceptions of 32 leaders (17 physician leaders and 15 dyad co-leaders) in formal leadership positions (six first-level with formal authority limited to teams or divisions, 23 middle-level with wider departmental or program responsibility and three senior-level with institution-wide authority) were obtained through focus groups and surveys. In addition, five senior leaders were interviewed. Descriptive statistics was used for quantitative data, and qualitative data were analyzed for themes by coding and categorization. Findings There are a large number of shared responsibilities in the hybrid model, as most activities in HCOs bridge administrative and professional spheres. These span the leadership (e.g. global performance and quality improvement) and management (e.g. human resources, budgets and education delivery) domains. The individual responsibilities, except for staff and physician engagement are in the management domain (e.g. operations and patient care). Both partners are responsible for joint decision-making, projecting a united front and joint reporting through a quadrat format. The mutual relationship and joint accountability are key characteristics and are critical to addressing potential conflicts and contradictions and achieving coherence. Practical implications Clarity of role will assist development of standardized job descriptions and required competencies, recruitment and leadership development. Originality/value This is an original empirical study presenting an integrated view of dyad leaders and senior leadership, meaningful expansion of shared responsibilities including academic functions and developing mutual relationship and emphasizing the central role of stability generating management functions.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it