Leading temporary project teams: An analysis of task‐ and person‐focused leadership over time
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 Nonprofit organizations are increasingly relying on temporary project teams to carry out their activities. Time is of the essence with such endeavors. Diverse individuals join a project team and work through several phases in order to reach their goal. Because team needs will fluctuate over time, the focus of leadership is also likely to change. Unfortunately, very little is known about these dynamics, because research has overly focused on the individual characteristics of leaders. In this study, we gained access to archival data on the interactions among the individuals working on a temporary project team, which allowed us to compare how both task‐ and person‐focused leadership evolved over time. We found that both types of leadership increase in intensity over the lifetime of the project, but also that the need for person‐focused leadership is greater later on, while task‐focused leadership is prevalent at earlier stages. Our results help generate key insights for both the theory and practice of project team leadership.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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