The use of benevolent leadership development to advance principles of responsible management education
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 The purpose of this paper is to proposes benevolent leadership development as a framework to incorporate principles of responsible management education to mainstream management curriculum, specifically within the context of leadership courses. Design/methodology/approach The illustrative processes, exercises, and projects in this paper come from leadership development courses offered in Turkey and in Canada. Findings This paper presents four anchors that support benevolent leadership development: ethical sensitivity, spiritual depth, positive engagement, and community responsiveness. Research limitations/implications The paper develops the framework of benevolent leadership as a means to impart the principles of responsible management. Practical implications The paper shares pedagogical strategies to incorporate benevolent leadership in leadership development courses through use of individual and team projects and exercises. Originality/value The paper shares a theoretical framework and practical insights for incorporating multiple literacies and sensitivities – namely morality, spirituality, positivity, and community – in leadership development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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