Managerial coaching of frontline employees: The moderating role of gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managerial coaching (also known as the leader‐as‐coach model) is becoming prevalent as a new management paradigm to develop and empower employees and help them increase their performance. At the same time, the composition of the workforce has changed, with female employees reaching almost 50% of workers and around 30% of managers. Accordingly, scholars have set out to understand if gender affects managerial behaviors and employee responses. The goal of this study is to evaluate if significant differences in performance should be expected when coaching female and male employees. The results suggest that female and male responses to managerial coaching are more complex than expected. Managerial coaching positively affects female behavioral and result performance and male behavioral performance, but—contrary to expectations—no significant effect was found for coaching on male result performance. Additionally, female and male employees differ in their self‐evaluation of the focal performance constructs, with females evaluating their contribution to performance at lower levels than their male counterparts. The results suggest that, to be an effective developmental tool, the approach taken with coaching should take into consideration the recipient's gender and address different areas of performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".