Workplace coaching to develop leadership flexibility: the impact of after-event review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The main goal of this study was to determine whether coachees assigned to complete an after-event review (AER) to prepare for each coaching session would experience greater development in their leadership flexibility than participants assigned to a group experiencing process-oriented coaching without AERs. Design/methodology/approach Data were obtained using a quasi-experimental design with multi-source and longitudinal data, including 46 coachees and 103 external raters. Findings The AER was associated with greater improvement in leadership flexibility (forcing-enabling duality). In contrast, participants who did not use AER had lower leadership flexibility as assessed by external respondents. Leadership flexibility was associated with team performance and vitality. Practical implications Results show that during this process, clients' ownership of their development plan is reinforced, as is their capacity to internalize this process of reflection once the coaching is finished, thus allowing the development to continue beyond the approach. Originality/value These results are among the first to suggest that a specific structured facilitation process used by coaches may be more effective in the development of coachees than regular process-oriented coaching.
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 | 0.015 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".