MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2761070171 · doi:10.1108/lodj-06-2016-0145

Global leaders’ perceptions of elements required for effective leadership development in the twenty-first century

2017· article· en· W2761070171 on OpenAlex
Rob Elkington, Noel J. Pearse, Jennifer D. Moss, Madeleine van der Steege, Suzanne S. Martin

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

VenueLeadership & Organization Development Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDelphi Technique in Research
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeadership developmentDelphi methodLeadership studiesShared leadershipSocial capitalTransactional leadershipDelphiLeadership styleCross-cultural leadershipPublic relationsSample (material)NeuroleadershipSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop a clear answer to the question “how is leadership developed?” This research utilized the knowledge of leadership development experts and their collective expertise to identify the critical elements required for a high-quality leadership development program. Design/methodology/approach The Lockean Inquiring System approach to the Delphi technique was used to solicit the views of experts in leadership and leadership development from around the world. Experts for Round 1 of the Delphi were drawn from a random sampling of 100 people, comprising leadership researchers, coaches, and organizational leaders, not personally known to the lead researcher of this project, but in his LinkedIn network. A response rate of 13 percent ( n =13) yielded a rich range of qualitative data. Responses from the first round of the Delphi were analyzed using open coding and categorized into four themes, representing four sets of competencies required of leaders. Findings The four themes were labeled as contextual, human capital, social capital, and structural capital, all of which were seen by participants as being central to the development of collective leadership. Based on these themes, this paper identifies a useful list of key leadership development tactics from which those wishing to develop a leadership program can work. Research limitations/implications As the first round of a Delphi study, the authors are limited to presenting only the key elementary empirical judgments. Subsequent study with an expanded sample size and a refined set of questions rooted in the current data will contribute further to the development of factual propositions related to leadership development for the twenty-first century. The Delphi survey is a “snapshot” approach and presents a holographic-type image of the complex whole. The authors plan to triangulate the data by significantly expanding the pool of Delphi experts and conducting the Round 1 survey a second time with a larger international group of respondents that fit the criteria of expert. Practical implications This paper presents four dimensions of an effective leadership development strategy. Originality/value Core elements of the best methods for leadership development have been identified by leadership development experts, which serve as a basis for developing leadership as a collective, and for further research.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.212
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.203 · 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