“All in the hall” or “sage on the stage”: learning in leadership development programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the intersection of learning theory and leadership development by developing a conceptual framework and applying it to an exemplar case. Design/methodology/approach First, the conceptual framework was developed through extant literature in learning theory. Then, using a qualitative design, the researchers conducted telephone interviews with participants and past graduates of a leadership programme that had already been evaluated as successful from a behavioural and job performance perspective. Findings Current participants and past graduates of the leadership development programme were more likely to describe their learning experiences in terms of “all in the hall” comments versus “sage on the stage” comments. The researchers also found that human resource professionals were not taking “all in the hall” factors into consideration when making decisions on awarding contracts for leadership development programmes. Research limitations/implications Given that the paper examined only one case, further research in this area is needed to substantiate the findings. Interesting research opportunities exist at the intersections of two disparate bodies of scholarly knowledge. Practical implications The researchers suggest that more attention should be paid to learning principles in both the design of leadership development programmes and the decision criteria employed by those who are responsible for awarding contracts. Originality/value To the researchers' knowledge, this paper constitutes the first investigation of leadership development through a cognitive psychology lens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".