MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041303205 · doi:10.1108/00197850510602088

The evolution of leadership development: challenges and best practice

2005· article· en· W2041303205 on OpenAlexaff
Inger Buus

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial and Commercial Training · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Learning and Leadership
Canadian institutionsHotel Dieu Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeadership developmentOriginalityManagementIBMFace (sociological concept)Global LeadershipLeadership styleValue (mathematics)Public relationsBusinessPolitical scienceSociologyQualitative researchEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.070
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0700.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.021
Scholarly communication0.0250.018
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.258
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.013 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial and Commercial TrainingSame topicOrganizational Learning and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207