Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to position leadership as a relationship between leader and follower, and suggests ways that leaders can develop the relationship as a day‐to‐day activity. Design/methodology/approach Uses current thinking on “followership” as a perspective, and draws on the author's practical experiences of leadership as an army officer. Findings Argues that the leader/follower relationship requires continuous work day‐to‐day to engage and create trust to align effort towards goals. Leaders need to work hard at listening and understanding other people's desires, issues and stories, and to be clear when sharing important messages with other people, so that communication is effective. In addition, argues that effective leaders choose to follow at times, in order to deepen the level of trust and engagement within the relationship. Advances the view that to follow is, in fact, an act of leadership. Practical implications Emphasizes that leadership is a collective, rather than individual, phenomenon. Leaders therefore should not be seen in isolation from their followers. Originality/value Reinforces the power that the follower, as well as the leader, has in the leader/follower relationship.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".