Leader‐follower dynamics: developing a learning environment
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Explores leader‐follower dynamics within a context of a learning organization. Examines the influence of leaders’ behaviours on their followers’ learning in an energy company based in western Canada. Using survey data gathered from 400 full‐time employees the researchers assessed Senge’s proposition in The Fifth Discipline (1990) that leadership behaviour, conceptualized in terms of three roles: steward, designer and teacher, facilitated informal learning. Using a learning questionnaire to measure supportive leadership practices for learning in the workplace, it is argued that the results revealed the presence of all three roles in the case study. Of the three, the “designer” role was the weakest at 57 percent agreement from respondents followed by 63 percent for “steward” and 67 percent for “teacher”. Significant differences in the level of agreement were found within duration of employment and occupational group. The data will encourage organizational leaders to reflect critically upon their activities if they are committed to the strategy of developing their intangible assets: people.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it