An Empirical Investigation of Leader Identity Formation and Implications for Executive Coaching and Leadership Development
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
This article addresses a gap in understanding about leader identity, specifically its formation across the course of an individual's life, and the impact of identity enablers and derailers on this process. To begin to address this gap, this article reports survey data exploring these aspects of identity formation with a global, working adult population (n=1018). Results provide empirical support for identity formation as a dynamic, variable process. Results also indicate a positive correlational relationship between the strength of an individual's leader identity and the specific leader identity enablers reported in the leader identity literature. Together these findings provide preliminary, empirical support for Leader Identity Formation Theory (LIFT), whilst also suggesting areas for future research. Given the role of leader identity in enabling enhanced leader effectiveness, the practical implications of these results for executive coaching and leadership development are also 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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