MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2368212185 · doi:10.1108/jgr-01-2016-0002

Leadership as enabling function for flourishing by design

2016· article· en· W2368212185 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Global Responsibility · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Organizational Studies
Canadian institutionsOntario College of Art and DesignOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingMindsetTransformational leadershipPublic relationsLeadership developmentGenerativityDelphi methodFunction (biology)Engineering ethicsPolitical scienceSociologyKnowledge managementManagementPsychologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyEngineeringEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it