The evolution of leadership development: challenges and best practice
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 This paper aims to investigate the attitude of European organisations to leadership development initiatives and to identify best practice initiatives that organisations should employ to build skills and capabilities for the future. Design/methodology/approach The research, Leadership Development in European Organisations, conducted by DIEU, the Danish Leadership Institute. The study was completed in November 2004 and was conducted among 51 global organisations via face‐to‐face and telephone interviews. The respondents all operate at a senior level within their organisation – for example, they are senior development managers, directors or vice presidents. Over 70 per cent of the participating organisations employ over 20,000 people and 22 per cent have between 5,000 and 20,000 employees. Participating companies include Astra Zeneca, BMW, BP, Cadbury Schweppes, Dell Computers, HBOS, IBM Europe, Pearsons plc, Siemens, UBS and Vodafone. Findings The DIEU study has found that more than half (53 per cent) of key European business players have not increased their leadership training budget for the last four years and 46 per cent say they cannot see this level of investment changing in the next three years. Less than one‐quarter of boardrooms and under one‐third of senior management teams are fully committed to their companies’ goals for leadership development and nearly half (48 per cent) are not integrating their leadership development with business needs. The report cites organisational frictions and a general lack of awareness that leadership development matters as being among the reasons for this lack of support for leadership development. Originality/value This paper is valuable to organisations and HR and development professionals who are considering or reviewing their current leadership development activity. It makes a number of recommendations for organisations seeking to implement best practice leadership, as well as detailing the likely future nature of leadership development across the board.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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