Communion then Agency: Women’s Ascension to the Hospital CEO Role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women continue to remain greatly underrepresented in senior leadership roles, perhaps most obviously within the CEO position. However, the Ontario hospital system is a notable counterexample: 52% of Ontario hospital CEOs identify as women. This begs the question: how did these women ascend to the hospital CEO position? In attempts to explain this anomaly, we leverage existing theory on women in leadership to generate three plausible explanations. Using data from 22 semi-structured interviews with women Ontario hospital CEOs, we employ abductive thematic analysis to empirically evaluate our three explanations. Findings show that communal behaviors positively contribute to women’s upward career mobility, and that the hospital CEO job role strongly entails communal leadership behaviors. Further, throughout their careers, many participants subtly exuded the essence of agency without engaging in traditional agentic behavior. Collectively, overt communal behaviors and subtle agentic behaviors positively contributed to participant’s emergence as CEOs. Ultimately, findings depict a new way in which these women leaders navigated a shifting double-bind.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".