Workplace coaching to develop leadership flexibility: the impact of after-event review
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 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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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