The Effects of Different Behavioral Goals on Transfer from a Management Development Program
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
The present field study examined transfer from a training program that focused on interpersonal skills for public‐sector management development participants ( n = 172). Using a quasi‐experimental design, participants were assigned to one of three behavioral conditions (behavioral outcome goals, behavioral specific goals, rank‐ordered behavioral goals) or a comparison do‐your‐best condition. Transfer was assessed using a self‐report survey, self‐ BOS (behavioral observation scale) ratings, and workplace observer (median = 4) BOS ratings. Overall, the results suggest that the management development program was effective. Self‐efficacy and transfer (self‐ BOS ratings) scores, across all conditions, were higher post‐program relative to pre‐program. Post‐program self‐ BOS ratings revealed that behavioral outcome goals increased transfer relative to the other two forms of behavioral goals. Behavioral specific goals reduced transfer, as assessed by workplace observer BOS ratings, relative to all other study conditions. There was no evidence that either form of behavioral goals was superior to do‐your‐best.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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