Senior Female Leadership: An Exploration of Midlife Experiences and the Relevance of Developmental Coaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper aims to increase our understanding of women's experience of senior leadership during midlife and explores how developmental coaching can support women at this career stage.Developmental coaching is identified as relevant to periods of transition in a person's life as it focuses on the person themselves rather than their skills or performance.An interpretivist, qualitative method using semi-structured interviews was applied to a sample of senior midlife female leaders in order to explore the relevance of this coaching approach.Rich data were drawn from a sample of senior female leaders including VPs and C-Suite who shared their midlife experiences, and the role coaching can have at this career stage.Our findings challenge existing narratives of midlife as a period of female decline and confirms the need to understand the diversity of midlife experience across age ranges.More importantly the findings align with previous descriptions of developmental coaching.Critically they support the need to adopt a holistic approach to coaching senior midlife women that takes into account both the professional and personal challenges inherent in this key developmental transition period.This requires a coaching relationship based on an advanced level of coaching maturity and experience on the part of the coach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".