Le coaching de gestion et la satisfaction au travail ; liens entre le coaching, le leadership et la satisfaction au travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le lien entre le leadership et la satisfaction au travail a été abondamment étudié. Se faisant, le coaching est devenu un moyen efficace pour développer et améliorer le leadership. Par ailleurs, certains articles ont montré que le leadership transformationnel est associé au coaching et à la satisfaction au travail. Qui plus est, les recherches confirment que le coaching favorise le développement du style transformationnel, variable qui jusqu’alors a été étudiée indépendamment de la satisfaction au travail des employés. Or à notre connaissance, peu d’études se sont attardées sur le lien possible entre le coaching, le style de leadership et la satisfaction au travail. La présente réflexion théorique a donc pour objectif de démontrer un lien potentiel entre le coaching, le style transformationnel et la satisfaction au travail des employés. Des recommandations seront proposées quant à l’importance du coaching et l’approche à privilégier pour le développement du leadership transformationnel dans le but d’augmenter la satisfaction au travail des employés.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.001 |
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".