Performance management coaching: servant leadership and gender implications
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider theoretically the relationships between performance management, a servant leadership style and leader gender, drawing from Hackman and Wageman's theory of team coaching to suggest a servant leadership style being optimally suited to support the different leadership roles enacted at different stages of the performance management cycle. While recent research suggests that female managers may be more likely to enact a servant leadership style, team and process‐level considerations have yet to be addressed. This paper aims to theoretically address this topic. Design/methodology/approach This paper is conceptual based on theory with literature review. Findings Because the theory of team coaching suggests differential leader task delivery at various points in the coaching process, servant leadership's individually‐centred approach is suited to team coaching, particularly in the execution of performance management coaching. Practical implications Since research suggests that women are more likely to employ a servant leadership style, this paper explores whether gender plays a role in team coaching. Originality/value This study makes a novel contribution by considering the influence of a servant leadership style at the leadership process and team levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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