Developing a measure for “connectorship” as a component of engaged leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of a mixed methods study that explored how active community engaged and connected managers were in their local and broader communities (engaged leadership, EL). The paper specifically investigates an under researched aspect of EL – “connectorship” – with focus on developing a measure for connectorship. The authors present the conceptual framework for EL, followed by the operationalization of “connectorship” construct. Design/methodology/approach – The paper focusses on developing a measure for connectorship using data from a qualitative study of 18 senior managers followed by a survey of 458 managers in Canada. Findings – Content analyses of qualitative data led to the generation of 93 items measuring connectorship. Based on these items, quantitative analyses of survey data from 453 respondents yielded a final measure of connectorship, which consisted of 28 items explored under eight dimensions. Research limitations/implications – An organization’s emphasis on connectedness and engagement of leaders will improve knowledge sharing and better mutual understanding of organizational issues among managers. It will also help attain employment stability and decrease hiring and related costs by reducing turnover. Future research, specifically longitudinal studies of leaders at various organizational levels, could incorporate connectorship as a key criterion for leadership effectiveness. Practical implications – The focus on connectorship skills implies that in organizations the emphasis should go beyond traditional leadership skills development and included the neglected connectorship skills development. Increased connectedness and engagement among leaders will have positive performance implications. Social implications – For effective corporate citizenship, the EL framework and a focus on connectorship would help leaders better understand the importance of social networks, be aware of their own network, and improve their skills in connecting the people within their networks. Originality/value – Using a variable centered approach within the framework of EL the paper contributes to leadership literature by conceptually defining connectorship developing a measure for this construct and testing its psychometric properties.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".