How leadership works: A systematic review of the processes by which transformational leadership influences follower development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing recognition that transformational leadership (TL) theory may hold significant potential for coaching research in youth sport (Arthur, Woodman, Hardy, Ong, & Ntoumanis, 2011). Evidence suggests that coaches’ use of TL behaviours can be linked with positive athlete outcomes, such as motivation, performance, and personal development (Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001; Vella, Oades, & Crowe, 2013). While the existing literature offers valuable insight into the types of athlete outcomes that may be associated with TL, studies evaluating how these outcomes can be acquired in sport are limited. In order to illustrate how TL theory can be employed as an effective framework for exploring the relationships between coaches’ behaviours and positive youth development in sport, it is crucial to gain a better understanding of how TL exerts its influence on athlete outcomes. Thus, the purpose of the present study was to synthesize and integrate the research that has examined the processes by which TL influences followers’ psycho-social development in various disciplines. A systematic search was conducted of six electronic databases covering a wide range of disciplines, including business, health, education, and sport and exercise psychology. Peer-reviewed, original studies that were published in English were included in this review. The initial search yielded 2077 papers, of which 192 met the selection criteria and were retained for analysis. A descriptive, content analysis-based approach was used to assess emerging patterns in research design and study findings. Results revealed numerous processes, at the individual, interpersonal, and environmental levels, that contribute to the relationships between TL and follower development. Study samples mainly consisted of adults from organizational settings. All of the included studies employed a quantitative, questionnaire-based methodology, and the majority of papers were cross-sectional in nature. A conceptual model is proposed, along with recommendations for future coaching research in youth sport.
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 | 0.015 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".