Evidence‐based leadership development: the 4L framework
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 use the results of three research initiatives to present the life‐long learning leader (4L) framework, a model for leadership development intended for use by designers and providers of leadership development programming. Design/methodology/approach The 4L model is a conceptual framework that emerged from the analysis of one study conducted in Canada and two others conducted in international settings. Findings The 4L framework contains eight dimensions that leadership development programming should address: career stage, career aspirations, visionary capacity, boundary breaking entrepreneurialism, professional skills, instructional design and assessment literacy, crisis management, and approaches to leadership development. Research limitations/implications As with all research, findings are subject to researcher biases and limitations. Practical implications The 4L framework can be used as the basis for graduate programs in leadership, small‐ and large‐scale leadership development initiatives, and cross‐cultural leadership development. Implications of the 4L framework are discussed in relation to stakeholder roles, e.g. leaders, professional developers, university leadership preparation programs, employers, policy makers, and researchers. Originality/value The 4L is a framework for leadership development not only applicable within the field of education but also in broader contexts such as business and industry, health and social services, sports, and government. The 4L framework merits serious consideration by professional development providers and institutions of higher learning as a vehicle for leadership training and nurturing. It is comprehensive in that it suggests particular learning content for leadership development initiatives but it also addresses the processes for effective professional development of adult learners.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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