Leadership as enabling function for flourishing by design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to alert the reader to the urgent need to address the most pressing challenge and opportunity of the twenty-first century, namely, leadership that enables flourishing for all forever. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper suggests a heuristic for the reader and supplies a working model of leadership as enabling function for flourishing that arises from a survey of the literature around leadership development, as well as a brief review of the literature on flourishing. Findings The paper highlights the reality that there are, as yet, only a small number of organizations and leadership that have conceptualized and implemented the notion of flourishing by design and that a great deal more research and implementation needs to occur to prove the validity of the model. Research limitations/implications There is a need to undertake quasi-experimental research in which leadership development praxis incorporates the element of flourishing by design and then action research through which the outcomes can be measured, modified and ongoing improvements iterated into the organizational design. Practical implications This paper suggests a different mindset and skillset for leadership and, by implication, leadership development. The ongoing research into “Seeking Best Methods for Leadership Development”, through the authors’ Round 1 Delphi survey has uncovered the elements of Human Capital, Social Capital, Structural Capital and Self Leadership, as core elements desired by global CEOs as necessary for an effective leadership development program. What the authors did not probe for, and need to probe for, is the element of “Flourishing Capital” or the degree to which the leadership might be developed to serve as an enabling function for flourishing for all forever. Social implications If organizations design flourishing into the raison d‘être of the organization, then organizations will seek and develop leadership that has flourishing as a core motif and focus. If organizational leadership supports and enhances flourishing as a central motif, then a shift will occur from profit only to profit that supports flourishing for all forever. Originality/value The paper highlights the reality that there are, as yet, only a small number of organizations and leadership that have conceptualized and implemented the notion of flourishing by design and that a great deal more research and implementation needs to occur to prove the validity of the model.
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 | 0.025 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".