Leadership effectiveness and the problem of social action: Continuing the conversation between Burns and Rost
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While calling for the need to continue engaging in conversation with differing understandings of leadership effectiveness, the author demonstrates what this could look like in practice by conversing with three leadership authors, Hannah Arendt, from the field of Political Theory, James McGregor Burns from the disciplines of Political Science and American History, and Joseph C Rost, from the field of Education Administration/Leadership. In this article, the author seeks to understand differing and contradictory notions of leadership effectiveness as they are proposed by Burns and Rost. Following Arendt, the author (a) distinguishes the nature of action as understood by Burns (acting as making) and Rost (acting as initiating), (b) outlines the dominant influence of ‘acting as making’ or homo-faber image of leadership within the discipline of leadership studies, and (c) considers the implications of including ‘acting as initiating’ for leadership learning and education.
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 | 0.036 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.073 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.037 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| 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".