How do Registered Nurses Understand Followership?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a consensus that followers and leaders are interdependent, the focus of nursing education, practice, and research has been leader centred. This has spawned calls in the nursing literature for increased scholarship on followership in nursing. PURPOSE: To develop a grounded theory of followership in nursing. METHOD: This study addressed the question - how do registered nurses understand followership? 11 registered nurses participated in online interviews that were later transcribed and analyzed following Charmaz's approach to Constructivist Grounded Theory. RESULTS: The core category of trusting informal and formal leaders was co-constructed from the data. A conceptual model, titled Followership as Trust in Acute Care Nursing Teams, illustrates that the nurses' decision to trust (and subsequently to engage in following) hinges on sharing the load (understanding one's role, accepting one's role, and working together); demonstrating knowledge (having experience, modelling, and mentoring); and connecting through communication (knowing the goal and communicating clearly). When participants fully trust formal and informal leaders, they engage in following as proactive members of the team, provide solutions to problems, and take initiative. Conversely, when they are less trusting of informal and formal leaders, they are less willing to follow. CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the importance of trust between followers and leaders for effective team function and safe patient care. More research on the follower-leader dynamic in nursing is needed to inform education, policy, and practice so that every nurse possesses the knowledge and skill to be both a follower and a leader.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".