MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7073584736

Short-term informal leadership learning : a critical realist case study

2020· other· en· W7073584736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringInformal learningContext (archaeology)Leadership studiesOrganizational learningExperiential learningLeadership developmentAction learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uzochukwu Jude UDEDIBIA, B.Phil., MCE, Short-Term Informal Leadership Learning (STILL): A Critical Realist Case Study Research, submitted to Lancaster University Management School for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Management Learning and Leadership, September 2019. This thesis focuses on the short-term informal learning from the restructuring experience of twenty four senior leaders from three Canadian healthcare organizations who led restructuring in their organizations. This study investigated the leaders’ learning through a critical realist case study research approach. It used Pawson and Tilley’s (1997) Context-Mechanisms-Outcomes (CMO) framework to analyze their learning by describing the context of the learning, inferring mechanisms that can plausibly explain their learning, and describing the learning outcomes that these inferred mechanisms produced. This research’s departure point is the ongoing issue and debate about how formal leadership learning only contributes marginally to leadership emergence and development. In practice, organizations are complaining that they are not seeing acceptable returns in the heavy investments they have made in leadership development programs. On their own side, leadership scholars, having noticed this contribution gap, are calling for more research that may potentially contribute more to leadership learning. Therefore it is valuable to focus research on other sources - as processes or models - that have the potential to contribute more to leadership development. One such area for investigation is understanding how leaders learn informally in the short-term given time pressures occasioned by fast-moving organizational change demands. While previous research identified that learning informally from the experience of activities that they are engaged with is a natural way for leaders to learn, focus on this had remained on the learning that occurs over a long period of time. As insufficient research attention has been given to this area of how short-term informal leadership learning can occur, this research undertook this research to contribute to knowledge in this underserved area of leadership development. This research found that leaders can learn in the short-term and that a model that involves the processes of attention grabbing, rapid reaction, and meaning making can explain how the learning occurs.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.103 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLancaster EPrints (Lancaster University)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207