Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a three-year training program based on action learning principles with regard to its effectiveness in fostering authentic leadership (AL) and mindfulness among the participants. Design/methodology/approach – Data were obtained using a mixed-method design. Quantitative data were collected using a quasi-experimental sequential cohort design with comparison group, in which 143 participants responded to a self-evaluation questionnaire up to six times over a three-year period. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted with 24 managers. Findings – The results indicate that, as participants evolved through the leadership development program, self-reports of AL and mindfulness increased significantly and linearly as determined using repeated measures ANOVA, pairedt-tests, and content analysis of interviews. Practical implications – The results suggest that a leadership development program based on action learning principles can foster the development of AL and mindfulness. The core elements of action learning (i.e. working on real problems, gaining new insights in a supportive and confrontational environment of one’s peer) appear to be key to bringing about real changes in the behavior of participating managers and maximizing the chances of generating lasting effects. Originality/value – This is the first longitudinal study to demonstrate that the development of mindfulness and AL – which calls for internalization of attitudes and behaviors – can be fostered by a leadership development program. The question of whether AL can be developed through planned interventions is paramount for advancing theory and research on AL.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".