Coaching for Results: The Kind of Change Results Coaches Facilitate and the Tactics they Use to Do So
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
One major problem of aid effectiveness and public sector reforms in developing countries is the disparity between the planned outcomes and the actual performance on the ground – referred to as the implementation gap. To tackle this issue, since 2005, the World Bank develops and provides political and operational leadership support to borrowing countries to reinforce their capacity to achieve concrete results. Rapid results initiatives and tailored coaching create changes which help closing the implementation gap. However, little operational research is available on results coaching. The main argument of this research is that techniques, strategies and abilities deployed by results coaches have a significant influence on behavioral and organizational change, and ultimately on project implementation and development outcomes. Researchers surveyed fourteen coaches, and using an inductive approach, identified six types of changes and the techniques employed by the coaches. We present and discuss each of these changes and show that result coaching fills an important gap in our understanding of how leaders at different levels can improve implementation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it