MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132334908

Bosch China: Building a Coaching Culture

2024· other· W7132334908 on OpenAlexaff
李秀娟, 赵丽缦

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2024
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingWork (physics)Field (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

本案例从“开端”“发展”“升级”三个阶段讲述了博世(中国)投资有限公司(简称“博世中国”)打造“教练文化”的背景、挑战、思考和应对策略等,并站在教练俱乐部成立五周年这个时点(2021年11月15日),探索未来如何让“教练文化”发挥更大的价值。 2016年中,为了助力“从一家传统制造型企业向以物联网为中心的科技公司”的战略转型及其所需人才的发展,博世中国正式推出了“教练型领导实践课程”,却在第一天就遭到高管的质疑。通过积极与外部教练配合、调动更多业务高管积极性、运营教练俱乐部等办法,博世中国让越来越多的博世人接受了“教练”理念。然而,在后续发展过程中,面对行业变局和疫情的影响,博世集团自2020年起减少了在华投资。在培训预算大幅降低的情况下,博世中国通过内化教练课、引入团队教练等方式让教练领导力的影响辐射到更多中层管理者和事业部。随后,“教练文化”渐渐形成,但期间企业又不得不做出多项权衡:“做本土文化vs.与全球文化联结”“内部独立认证vs.与ICF认证挂钩”和“主动推动vs.等待被需要”。 经过五年多的探索,博世中国打造“教练文化”的实践取得了一定的成效:于内,得到以智能制造解决方案事业部副总裁韩冬丽为代表的高管的认可,并助力其所在的事业部实现业务发展;于外,获得拉姆(查兰管理实践奖和国际教练协会德国棱镜奖等认可。但是,企业内部对推行“教练文化”的质疑声一直没有间断过,内部不乏业务高管认为,“教练文化”只是锦上添花,在当下企业面临巨大的业务压力时,企业更应该关注人才的技能培训和发展,而不是追求“教练文化”,后者对业务发展没有实际帮助。 2021年11月15日,负责人力资源建设及管理工作的执行副总裁李晓虹女士接到德国总部的邀请,总结博世中国打造“教练文化”的经验,并在更广范围内传播。动力和阻力并存,李晓虹思考着:她应该如何输出博世中国打造“教练文化”的经验呢?相关经验可否在总部或其他组织复制?有哪些适用条件?又该如何推进呢?

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.055

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207