Leadership succession planning “affects commercial success”
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
Purpose To help organizations to identify and develop future leaders, to highlight good and bad practices in development, to specify areas for improvement and to build on previous research in this area. Design/methodology/approach The article is based on a survey of 115 respondents – 46 percent of whom report an annual turnover in excess of $1 billion – from 19 industries. About 90 percent of respondents are based in the US, with the remainder being located in the UK, France, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Russia and central and eastern Europe. Findings Careful planning for leadership succession at major organizations has a significant impact on their commercial success. Conversely, there is a corresponding significant negative correlation between an organization's need to hire outside leaders and its confidence to meet future growth needs. Practical implications Chief executives and other senior managers need to commit time and energy to on‐the‐spot development of high‐potential individuals. Originality/value The article is of value to organizations seeking to identify and nurture talented employees for future leadership positions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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