Wunderkind Wisdom: Younger Advisers Discount Their Impact in Reverse Advising Contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common wisdom suggests that advice typically flows from an older expert to a younger novice. However, disruptions in technology and more fluid organizational hierarchies have made peer advising (i.e. giving advice to others of the same age) and reverse advising (i.e. giving advice to someone older with less expertise) more common. Six studies with MBA students and working professionals explore the psychology of advisers across these contexts. Although advisers believed they would be less effective in reverse advising and more effective in peer and traditional advising contexts, these perceptions were misguided: individuals in reverse advising contexts did not evaluate their advisers as less effective than did advisees in traditional and peer advising contexts. This perception-reality gap is driven by advisers’ perceptions about their own competency in advising others and others’ receptiveness to learning from them. Finally, we demonstrate a reflection-based intervention that mitigates advisers’ misguided beliefs. Taken together, the findings illustrate challenges advisers face in non-traditional advising contexts, and we discuss their theoretical and practical implications on the nascent study of reverse advising.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".