Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within the Canadian public sector
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study responds primarily to numerous calls for specific public management and public administration‐related research to better understand public leadership currently performed in an increasingly complex and ambiguous world. It also responds to calls in the human resource development (HRD) literature for more qualitative managerial behavior research. The inquiry explores perceptions of what behaviorally distinguishes effective managers from ineffective managers, as expressed by managers and nonmanagerial employees within a Canadian public utility company. It reaches for generalization by comparing the results against findings from equivalent qualitative managerial behavior studies carried out in three subareas of the British public sector. Using the critical incident technique (CIT), concrete examples (critical incidents [CIs]) of observed managerial behavior were collected from managers and nonmanagerial staff. The CIs ( n = 530) were subjected to open and axial coding to identify a smaller number of discrete behavioral categories (BSs). Selective coding of the identified BSs ( n = 99) resulted in 16 positive (effective) and 12 negative (ineffective) behavioral criteria (BCs) being deduced. Over 92% of the Canadian BSs are convergent in meaning with over 81% of the compared British BSs. Consequently, they are likely to be generalizable to other subareas of the Canadian public sector. The 8% of nonconvergent Canadian BSs and their respective underpinning CIs contain no content that could be construed as being context‐specific to the Canadian public utility sector. Implications of these study findings for HRD research and practice are discussed.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it