Examining the role of and value placed on trusted advisors as viewed by the Chief Executive Officer: A case study on the trusted advisor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given its proximity to and relationship with the C-suite, the role of the trusted advisor is one that many professionals, both within and outside public relations management, aspire to. Perhaps it is for this reason that the trusted advisor, particularly as it relates to the role of the Chief Communication Officer, has received considerable attention in public relations research and academic literature. However, there appears to be a gap in the body of knowledge about the trusted advisor role from the perspective of the Chief Executive Officer. Accordingly, the purpose of this research study was to explore the value of trusted advisors as perceived by the CEO. Through interviews with five chief executives, this study provides insight into the overall nature and role of the trusted advisor relationship: how the individuals came to be trusted advisors; the qualities and abilities that made them suited to the role; and how the CEOs engage with and rely on them. These insights are viewed in relation to the literature on relationship management, the concept of trust, and the roles of the Chief Executive Officer and trusted advisor. The findings indicate that the CEOs saw trust as a critical and foundational element of the relationship. It is also evident that the trusted advisors were relied upon to provide direct and honest feedback. This includes the ability to challenge the perspectives of the CEO, which contributes to building a relationship based on mutual trust. Keywords: Chief Executive Officer, trusted advisor, relationships, relationship theory, trust, value
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".