MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028354627 · doi:10.1016/j.hcmf.2012.05.006

Leaders and Emotional Intelligence: A View from Those Who Follow

2012· article· en· W2028354627 on OpenAlexaff
Ken Zakariasen, Kristin Zakariasen Victoroff

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligencePsychologyShared leadershipTransactional leadershipLeadership styleSocial psychologyLeadershipApplied psychologyLeadership developmentPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract-Boyatzis and Goleman state that Emotional Intelligence (EI) "is an important predictor of success." In their book Primal Leadership, they refer to "the leadership competencies of emotional intelligence: how leaders handle themselves and their relationships." The leadership exercises reported here examined the practices of effective and ineffective leaders as identified by individuals who have worked under such leaders (ie, followers/subordinates). We sought to ascertain to what extent these practices are related to EI. The 2-year data from these leadership exercises show the strong relationships between perceived leadership effectiveness and emotionally intelligent leadership practices as observed by leaders' followers. For example, whether considering the practices that made effective leaders effective or the practices that ineffective leaders needed to adopt or significantly improve upon (in the eyes of subordinates), these practices were almost exclusively related to EI. These findings are supported in the EI literature, as is the strength of subordinates' assessments in predicting leadership effectiveness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.006
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.394
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

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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207