MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555212126 · doi:10.1177/174183051100900103

Does Supervisory Coaching Behaviour Reduce Salespeople's Lies?

2011· article· en· W1555212126 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of evidence based coaching and mentoring · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingPsychologyBusinessNeurosciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lying is pervading organizations and has a high economic and social toll. Lying among salespeople can be particularly dangerous, as they are at the boundaries of the organization and can affect many organizational outcomes. Traditionally, control systems have been used to reduce information asymmetry and the possibility of opportunistic behaviour (such as lying), and lately it was suggested that managers’ attitudes and role modeling could further reduce them. Building on the social exchange framework, we analyse relational exchanges between managers and subordinates, and we propose that managerial coaching can reduce subordinates’ lies. We present empirical evidence supporting our hypothesis and discuss significant theoretical and managerial implications.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.256
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it