MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1700328802 · doi:10.1177/174183051000800105

Sales Managers’ Motivation to Coach Salespeople: An exploration using expectancy theory

2010· article· en· W1700328802 on OpenAlexaff
Claudio Pousa, Anne Mathieu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of evidence based coaching and mentoring · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCoaching Methods and Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryBusinessPsychologyMarketingSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sales managers can supervise and help salespeople achieve their performance goals by using two types of behaviours: ‘coaching’ or ‘directive’ behaviour. As companies can be interested in promoting coaching in order to develop their human resources, they can find useful to understand which factors affect sales managers’ motivation to coach rather than to "direct". Building on Vroom's Expectancy Theory, we develop a theoretical model exploring sales managers’ motivation to show a coaching behaviour. Organizational implications are drawn from the model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.263
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of evidence based coaching and mentoringSame topicCoaching Methods and ImpactFrench-language works237,207