Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main purpose of the present study was to implement an experiment to explore the effects from coachingbased leadership on goal setting, self-efficacy, and causal attribution. The study comprised of 20 executives and124 middle managers at a branch of a Norwegian Fortune 500 company who all voluntarily participated in anexperiment over a period of one year. The executives who were randomly chosen for the experiment groupconducted a coach specific training programme over one year and executed coaching based leadership with themiddle managers in the experiment group.The study uses ANCOVA to explore possible effects from coaching based leadership on psychological variablesthat have an impact on performance. The ANCOVA analyses from this study supported none out of threeproposed hypotheses. Only one significant change in the experiment group was found, as successful attributionsto ability increased. This study raises important questions about coaching based leadership. The results aremainly discussed related to possible conflicting roles in coaching based leadership and possible lack ofcompetencies among the executives to efficiently fulfil their roles as coaches.Coaching in business is a fast growing industry and this study is a contribution to expand the amount ofempirical studies with an experiment- and control group design that explore the effects from coaching basedleadership.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".