Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Leadership is about knowledge, skills, and abilities for transformation. It is also increasingly about worldviews or visions of life —beliefs, values, and principles. But worldviews are also ways of life , for beliefs direct us, values guide us, and principles motivate us to certain kinds of action and behavior. How, then, do worldviews have an impact on leadership for transformation? If worldviews are glasses or filters by which we view the world, mental models of the bigger picture , frameworks by which we make sense of the world, and narratives by which we orient our lives, then how do they influence human thoughts, ideas, and behaviors when it comes to transformative leadership? This was the subject matter of an International Leadership Association Conference panel discussion held in November 2009 in Prague, entitled Leadership for Transformation: The Impact of Worldviews . It is also the subject matter of this issue's symposium, in which we bring you the four papers and the response presented at the conference. Members of the panel were characterized by gender, disciplinary, religious, and global diversity. Nathan Harter, organizational leadership professor at Purdue University in the United States, begins the discussion with some preliminary remarks about worldviews. Ali Mohammed Mir, medical doctor and director of programs of Population Council, Pakistan, speaks of leadership from an Islamic perspective. Michael Jones, accomplished composer, pianist, and leadership educator, writer, and speaker from Orillia, Canada, reflects on how a “marriage of mythos and logos ” can transform leadership today. Lisa Ncube, originally from Zimbabwe and currently assistant professor of organizational leadership at Purdue University, speaks about Ubuntu as an alternative leadership philosophy emerging from Africa. John Valk, associate professor of worldview studies at Renaissance College, University of New Brunswick, Canada, speaks of leadership for transformation from a Christian worldview perspective. Jonathan Reams, associate professor in the Department of Education at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, responds to all of the papers and opens a venue for further discussion. We hope that you will find this symposium engaging. We hope it will give food for thought and that it might stimulate further thinking regarding the role worldviews play in leadership for transformation.
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 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 | 0.009 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".