Global leaders’ perceptions of elements required for effective leadership development in the twenty-first century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".