MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7010338439

How Leaders Learn Through Work: A Case Study

2024· dissertation· en· W7010338439 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, Leadership, and Health Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOfficerQualitative researchLeadership developmentLeader developmentSupervisorWork (physics)White (mutation)Leadership style
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research has suggested that leader development is more complicated than expected (Day et al., 2021; Wallace et al., 2021; McCall, 2010). As a result, there have been recommendations to investigate the lived experience of leaders to enhance our understanding of how leaders develop through work. Using a conceptual framework inspired Stephen Billett (2002a, 2002b, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2008a, 2011), Tara Fenwick (2006a, 2006b, 2010) and Per-Erik Ellström’s (2001, 2011), this study focused on the relational interdependence between the individual and the work environment. Through a qualitative case study this research sought to unmask the work dynamics experienced by commanding officers within the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF). Commanding officers were chosen as participants because the commanding officer role in the CAF is a key leadership position and aligned with the concept experience-driven leadership. As suggested by Stephen Billett, this case study progressed through three components known as workplace curriculum: intended, enacted, and experienced curriculum. First, a document analysis of CAF doctrine, policy, manuals, and white papers revealed the intended curriculum. The results showed that the CAF influences the development of leaders by establishing the continuum of work, delegating the learning through experience to the supervisor and subordinate, and by favouring positional leadership. Second, semi-structured interviews with 8 more senior ranking officers revealed the enacted curriculum. Results showed that these officers influence the development of leaders by making institutional decisions to cultivate talent and build relationships that support learning. Third, 12 commanding officers participated in the research were interviewed three times over a six-month period to reveal the experienced curriculum. Results showed that individuals advanced their own learning when they selected a focus, made decisions that impacted their access to knowledge, changed their philosophies through cumulative experiences, and participated in ongoing reflection. Workplace curriculum help illuminate the complexity and social dynamics of leader development through work. Though leaders learn through work as suggested by experience-driven leadership, the organization and members within the organization can facilitate learning by offering opportunities and support. This is consistent with current research and extends perspectives that can inform organizational strategies focusing on leveraging workplace learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.006
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicEducation, Leadership, and Health Research→French-language works237,207→