Defining Situational Leadership for the Local Government Chief Administrative Officer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supervisory Committee Dr. Evert Lindquist (Department of Public Administration) Supervisor Dr. James McDavid (Department of Public Administration) Committee Member Dr. Carmen Galang (Faculty of Business) Outside Member Dr. Edward C. LeSage Jr. (Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta) Additional Member This study examines the situational leadership phenomena for Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) in Canadian local governments. CAO perceptions were solicited to explore how CAO strategic perspectives influence leadership preferences. A better understanding of the CAO leadership role is essential to maximize organizational effectiveness. A 45-item strategic contingency questionnaire was developed to reveal the CAO’s strategic context in terms of organizational/community and current/future dimensions providing an interpretive means to determine the reactive/proactive nature of strategic contexts facing CAOs. The CAO leadership approach was captured through a 48-item leadership competency questionnaire exhibiting a people/task-centred duality. Interviews with CAOs provide further insights to understand survey results. The survey data analyses produced reliable and robust factor structures to reduce instrument items to eight leadership clusters and four strategic contexts. Instrument testing confirms the utility of
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".