Individually considerate transformational leadership behaviour and self sacrifice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate how leaders report enacting individually considerate transformational leadership behaviour. More specifically, the extent to which they report engaging in supportive, developmental or self‐sacrificial aspects of this behaviour. Design/methodology/approach Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 51 senior leaders (21 female and 30 male) in the public and private sectors across five provinces in Canada. A blended grounded theory approach was utilised and suggestions for future research are presented. Findings Leaders reported being more likely to engage in supportive (59 percent) than developmental (41 percent) individually considerate transformational leadership behaviour. Further, male leaders were less likely than female leaders to report engaging in development in self‐sacrificing ways (21 percent versus 62 percent). Research limitations/implications This study extends the leadership literature to better understand the behavioural aspects of individual consideration and explore a new dimension of this behaviour (self‐sacrifice). Sample size is a possible limitation. Practical implications Developing employees has been identified globally as a pressing concern for leaders. However, in the study, leaders reported engaging in less developmental than supportive behaviours. Male leaders in particular were less likely to sacrifice their personal interests to develop employees. Originality/value An in‐depth examination of how leaders support and develop employees clarifies an important aspect of individual consideration and uncovers potential gender differences that previously have gone undetected.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".