MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285538023 · doi:10.32782/2224-6282/174-12

CHANGES IN THE LEADERSHIP PARADIGM IN XXI CENTURY ORGANIZATIONS

2021· article· en· W4285538023 on OpenAlex
Anna Hryshchuk, Mykola R. Khomych

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic scope · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal and Cross-Cultural Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLyingContext (archaeology)Public relationsLeadershipPsychologyLeadership theoryPolitical scienceSocial psychologyTransactional leadershipShared leadershipSociologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents a study of changes in the paradigm of leadership in accordance with modern challenges of the business environment and new requirements for the figure of the leader. The study of the paradigm of leadership is carried out through the prism of theoretical and historical conditions of its formation. Based on this, evolutionary changes of its development in the context of six basic periods with the indication of schools, theories, concepts, works and their representatives are defined. The current state of the leadership industry is analyzed on the examples of behavior of famous leaders, managers of foreign companies. The main problematic aspects of their behavior are identified. Based on researches conducted by reputable organizations in the US, Canada, as well as taking into account the Global Labor Force Index, the problem of employee dissatisfaction with their managers, leaders at work was identified. Research has shown that this problem has two aspects of origin: the first concerns the mismatch between real-world leadership and leadership in books, articles, and trainings; the second - concerns the manager himself, his behavior and relations with employees. It also focuses on such a weak side of leadership as lying. In particular, the main reasons for the lying of leaders are identified: 1) lies help to make relations better; 2) people experience stronger positive emotions when deceive ("emotional uplift of a liar"); 3) if a lie is repeated often enough and convincingly, it can become true (the Epid effect); 4) lies have become a common pattern of behavior both in everyday life and among the leaders of organizations on all continents, so little is condemned and held accountable. It has been proven that there is a close relationship between power and lies: those in power cheat more often, and the ability to cheat effectively gives more power. To get out of this situation, business organizations are invited to form a new type of leader-manager of the 5th level, the main characteristics of which are personal modesty, professional determination, dedication and honesty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it