Authentic Leadership Through an Ethical Prism
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 Problem Authentic leadership (AL) focuses on enhancing the capabilities and capacities of leaders. Instead of focusing on the leader, this article considers the ethical challenges of fostering authenticity among employees. One such challenge is that marginalized groups may feel unable to be true to their values, a key premise of authentic leadership. To foster workplaces where marginalized groups feel able to be true to themselves, we must consider the cultural and structural barriers that can negatively affect people’s ability to express themselves in the workplace. Hence, when considering the merits of AL, it is important for human resource development (HRD) professionals to consider what occurs when employees do not fit institutional norms. The Solution Creating the conditions for a relational authentic approach to AL that allows authentic otherness to flourish is an important and complex ethical task, one that HRD scholars and practitioners are uniquely placed to encourage. The Stakeholders HRD scholars and practitioners interested in creating the conditions that encourage the flourishing of authentic otherness among employees.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it