MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963530928 · doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000021

Shared Leadership and Team Performance in a Business Strategy Simulation

2010· article· en· W1963530928 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

VenueJournal of Personnel Psychology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipPsychologyPsychological safetyShared leadershipBusiness simulationLeadership styleTeam compositionSocial psychologyTeam effectivenessTransactional leadershipApplied psychologyKnowledge managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the relations between shared leadership in teams, team trust, potency, and performance. Forty-nine teams participating in a business simulation game rated their team potency, trust, and team leadership styles. Team potency and trust were positively related to shared transformational leadership and negatively related to passive avoidant leadership, but only the latter was significantly negatively related to team performance in the business strategy simulation. These results suggest that teams might not always benefit from transformational leadership qualities, but that “negative” leadership styles might be detrimental to performance and to the trust and confidence in the team.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.286 · 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