Examining the Relationship Between Leaders' Self-efficacy and Their Conceptualizations of Effective Senior Leadership in the Calgary Police Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the growing complexities of 21st-century policing, police leaders must exercise leadership that results in public safety and trust. This mixed methods study, following an explanatory sequential design, investigated the self-efficacy beliefs and the factors that have influenced the leader effectiveness of sworn and civilian senior police leaders in the Calgary Police Service (CPS). The conceptual framework for the study included leadership theory, social cognitive theory, mentorship, organizational culture, learning organizations, and organizational change. Of the 55 potential participants, 36 completed Phase 1, in which quantitative data were collected using a demographic survey, a leadership self-efficacy instrument, and a transformational leadership instrument. In Phase 2, 34 participants completed qualitative semistructured interviews. The data produced six overarching themes in relation to highly effective leadership: (1) learning to lead, (2) exemplary interpersonal skills, (3) values-centric leadership, (4) leader competency, (5) leader self-awareness, and (6) creating a positive work environment. They further identified several potential barriers to effective leadership: (a) strong personal relationships, (b) promotional and transfer processes in the CPS, (c) organizational structure, and (d) organizational culture. Based on the results, the Model for Enhanced Senior Leadership in Police Organizations was developed. It identifies the critical components required to create leader alignment, reduce the trust gap between senior leadership and operations, and increase senior leader effectiveness in police organizations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".