The role of authority and context in shaping leadership processes and distribution in business school departments : an exploratory study
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
Since the turn of the century interest has grown in alternative models of \nleadership to reflect increased complexity and ambiguity, the need to respond \nfaster to complex market conditions, and new patterns of accountability, inter- \ndependency and co-ordination within organisations of all types. This has led to \nthe emergence of alternative models of leadership including shared and \ndistributed leadership. In many organisations, such as those with matrix \nstructures, many leaders need to accomplish organisational goals without \nformal line management authority over employees. This is also the case in \nmany professional services (e.g. law and consultancy) that operate partnership \nmodels whereby individuals have little direct authority over their peers. In \nUniversity settings the governance structure also impedes traditional \nhierarchical leadership. The tenure system, operated by many universities and \ncolleges in the United States and Canada, provides intellectual autonomy, \nprotects academics from external pressure and offers job security. Despite a \ngrowing literature on shared and distributed leadership, few studies have \nempirically examined the nature of leadership distribution, the contextual factors \nthat impact leadership, and how those in senior positions (e.g. university \ndepartment chairs) achieve organisational goals when employees (e.g. faculty \nmembers) possess significant authority and autonomy. This study addresses \nthis gap. In so doing the study aims to contribute to the literature on shared and \ndistributed leadership and provide important insight to assist positional leaders \nwho possess limited direct authority in more effectively accomplishing their \nleadership goals. ...[cont.]
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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