Managing Knowledge in Transitions: Experiences of Health Care Leaders in Succession Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective and efficient methods of succession planning are integral to the success of organizations across the health care system. We explored current health organizations' senior leadership transition processes. Participants were in senior level leadership and decision-making positions in hospitals within Ontario, Canada. Most of the participants did not have formal transition plans and instead relied on the human resources department to plan for succession. We discuss these processes through three themes: (1) preplanning for a transition, (2) the transition process, and (3) barriers to successful transitions. The results of this study confirm the ideas that leadership style combined with experience and personal preferences dominates a leader's onboarding process. Like any complex organizational process, transitions ought to be iterative, flexible, and in line with the needs of individuals, the organizations, and the context. This research also provides further analysis around the broader contextual and cultural issues inherent to succession planning.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 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".