Organizational constraints as root causes of role conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to gain a better understanding of the difficulties encountered in the hybrid roles of physician-managers (P-Ms), examine the impact of organizational constraints on the role conflicts experienced by P-Ms and explore the different ways their two roles are integrated. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A qualitative approach was adopted, using six focus groups made up of clinical co-managers, medical directors and P-Ms. In all, 43 different people were interviewed to obtain their perceptions of the day-to-day realities of the role of the P-M. The data collected were subsequently validated. FINDINGS: Although the expectations of the different groups involved regarding the role of P-Ms are well understood and shared, there are significant organizational constraints affecting what P-Ms are able to do in their day-to-day activities, and these constraints can result in role conflicts for the people involved. Such constraints also affect the ways P-Ms integrate the two roles. The authors identify three role hybridization profiles. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The results afford a better understanding of how organizational constraints might be used as levers of organizational change to achieve a better hybridization of the dual roles of P-Ms. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper seeks to reach beyond a simple identification of constraints affecting the dual roles of P-Ms by analyzing how such constraints impact on these professionals' day-to-day activities. Results also enable us to further refine Katz and Kahn's (1966) role model, in addition to identifying hybridization profiles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".