Publication index
Scope, status, editing, version history and intended use.
THE COMPLETE CVT RESEARCH LIBRARY
Read the framework. Examine the evidence.
Proposed by Jean Nickson Pijeau · Version 0.1, October 2026 · Research update October 19, 2026. The teaching curriculum is a separate edition, 1.1.
Conceptual working papers and proposed pilot materials. No original empirical results, peer-review claim, validated CVT score or demonstrated training effect. The literature review is targeted, not systematic.
FULL DOCUMENTS, NOT ONLY SUMMARIES
Five papers and the complete toolkit.
Read or edit each document. The package also includes blank logs, instrument definitions, data dictionaries, citation checks, the hypothesis crosswalk and reference exports.
Foundational theory
The triad, distinct stages from contribution to reward, boundary conditions and rival explanations.
Contribution–Recognition Gap
Examine evidence and acknowledgment separately; no subtraction score or proof of unfairness.
Value Attribution
Credit judgments, evidence exposure, the generalized reported illustration and information experiments.
Builder’s Paradox
Test operational dependence, eligibility, opportunity and alternatives; examine protected capacity and transfer.
Builder-Leader Transition
Supported practice, technical judgment, influence and leadership development without a fixed personality hierarchy.
Research protocol
H1–H13, measurement development, observational and experimental designs, analysis and ethical safeguards.
Where this appears in the course
Organizational diagnostic
24 original items plus a separate eight-item attribution extension; scoring and validation warnings.
Where this appears in the course
Leadership development kit
Voluntary 90-day practice program, capacity agreements, worksheets and attribution practice.
Management contribution–recognition audit
Charter, work evidence, attribution, opportunity, corrections and a follow-up action record.
Where this appears in the course
Public brief
An accessible explanation of the model, proposed mechanisms and limits.
Where this appears in the course
Executive presentation
Editable executive deck, PDF and separate speaker notes for presenting the proposed framework.
Speaker notes ↓Where this appears in the course
References and evidence boundaries
23 checked source records with claim limits, source access notes and the targeted-review scope.
Where this appears in the course
Contribution Attribution Assessment
Eight exploratory items, accomplishment descriptions, independent manager accounts and history review; no combined score.
The complete conceptual spine
Corporate Value Triad · proposed
Builders, relationship operators and builder-leaders are proposed patterns of contribution and influence. They are not fixed personality types or a hierarchy of human worth.
Contribution–Recognition Gap · proposed
Contribution evidence and accurate acknowledgment can differ. The framework offers no validated gap score; opportunity, role criteria and measurement error remain relevant.
Value Attribution Mechanism · proposed
Observers encounter evidence, assign credit and record recognition. Those stages are distinct, and each proposed relationship can fail. Relationship and coordination work can create real value.
Builder’s Paradox · proposed
Operational dependence may delay an eligible contributor’s desired development. Test backup coverage, opportunity, preference and alternative explanations.
Builder-Leader Transition · proposed
Development may require supported practice, capability transfer and protected capacity. Training effectiveness and the proposed transition remain unvalidated.
Collective Attribution Paradox · proposed
Team-focused descriptions may leave individual actions less visible in individual evaluation under some conditions. This does not mean military team values are incompatible with corporate work.
Attribution Dilution Effect · proposed
Acknowledgment of originating work may diminish as innovations are adopted and modified, even without intentional appropriation. Direct validation is absent from this package.
Contribution Signaling · proposed
Explicit communication of personal actions is distinct from the value of those actions and from a manager’s actual exposure. Its proposed independent role needs validation.
The reported illustration and its limits
A generalized participant account describes a specialist creating an internal utility and a colleague later improving it while crediting the originator. It motivates questions about communication and exposure. It contains no independently verified recognition, promotion or compensation outcome and establishes no intentional manipulation. Identifying people, screenshots, company details and distinctive service history are excluded. It is not a consented empirical case study; external reuse requires appropriate confidentiality clearance and permissions, or removal of the illustration.
Course scenarios are separately labeled fictional. They are teaching designs, not evidence that CVT works or that a person belongs to an archetype.
What would need to be tested?
These are proposed predictions. The protocol specifies estimands, designs, rival explanations and evidence against each direction. No study is registered, approved or completed in this package.
| Stable ID | Proposed relationship — abbreviated |
|---|---|
| H1 | Earlier evaluator exposure predicts later attribution, conditional on contribution evidence and context. |
| H2 | Structured records attenuate the effect of prominence on credit judgments. |
| H3 | Earlier attribution predicts later recorded recognition, conditional on contribution, exposure and context. |
| H4 | Baseline operational dependence predicts lower development access among eligible employees. |
| H5 | Protected capacity plus capability transfer increases development access compared with usual practice. |
| H6 | Protected practice plus curriculum improves decision quality compared with the same curriculum under ordinary capacity. |
| H7 | Influence strengthens the recognition-to-promotion association, conditional on eligibility and adequate outcome data. |
| H8 | Independently assessed evaluation transparency weakens the exposure-to-recognition association, conditional on contribution. |
| H9 | Collective-focused attribution is associated with lower individual recognition than role-explicit attribution, conditional on contribution. |
| H10 | Managerial exposure moderates signaling and recognition; the update specifies no direction. |
| H11 | Acknowledgment of a fixed originating action declines as adoption broadens. |
| H12 | Structured contribution documentation attenuates attribution-style disparities, conditional on the specified baseline contrast. |
| H13 | Team-oriented norms relate to accomplishment framing; recognition seeking is a secondary outcome. |
The original package already used H7 and H8. The October 19 update’s H7–H11 therefore map to stable package H9–H13, in order. Both labels are preserved; no hypothesis is dropped or silently overwritten.
Download the exact hypothesis crosswalk ↓Research and organizational-use safeguards
The protocol separates measurement development, longitudinal observation, randomized fictional vignettes and optional field tests. Investigators must resolve recruitment, independent ethics determination, organizational permissions, consent, precision planning and preregistration before their own study. Observational associations and vignette effects do not establish workplace discrimination or causal pay effects.
The diagnostic contains 24 original items and a separate eight-item attribution extension. The Contribution Attribution Assessment adds employee descriptions, independent manager accounts and contribution-history review. No validated overall score, cutoffs, employee ranking, fixed archetype classifier or employment-decision validity is supplied. Pilot item summaries must retain their stated missing-data and validation limits.
Research participation must be voluntary, with identities separated from analysis and employer reporting, appropriate withdrawal and confidentiality procedures, and limits on small-cell disclosure. Managers must not use these tools for hiring, pay, promotion or discipline. See the full protocol for the actual proposed procedures and activation fields.
Academy enrollment, learning progress and optional product feedback are separate from research participation. They are not research consent or permission to publish responses. Course self-review and completion checks record participation only.
References and evidence boundaries
The October 19 companion documents 23 source records and the bounded claims visible in inspected primary records or abstracts. Access limitations are retained. This is bibliographic and bounded-claim checking, not an exhaustive full-text critical appraisal or proof of novelty.
R01 · Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success
Social capital and network benefits are associated with career success.
Limit: The reported structural model does not establish CVT or a causal visibility premium.
Observational study · Source access: Publisher abstract and bibliographic record inspected through indexed text. Direct open intermittently unavailable.
Primary source ↗R02 · Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas
Brokerage is associated with valued ideas and career outcomes in the studied organization.
Limit: Associations do not separate productive brokerage from all credit-allocation effects.
Observational organizational research · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R03 · Ferris, G. R., Treadway, D. C., Perrewé, P. L., Brouer, R. L., Douglas, C., & Lux, S. (2007). Political skill in organizations
Political skill has an existing multilevel theoretical account.
Limit: A conceptual account is not an empirical validation of CVT.
Conceptual theory · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R04 · Munyon, T. P., Summers, J. K., Thompson, K. M., & Ferris, G. R. (2015). Political skill and work outcomes: A theoretical extension, meta-analytic investigation, and agenda for the future
Political skill is positively associated with performance and career outcomes.
Limit: Associations do not imply that all influence is productive or establish CVT causality.
Meta-analysis · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected. Issue year 2015 retained; online-first date is 2013.
Primary source ↗R05 · Heilman, M. E., & Haynes, M. C. (2005). No credit where credit is due: Attributional rationalization of women's success in male-female teams
Ambiguous contribution in the studied mixed-sex team scenarios supported unequal credit judgments.
Limit: Do not generalize the experiment to every group, role, or workplace decision.
Three experimental studies · Source access: PubMed primary article abstract and bibliographic record inspected.
Primary source ↗R06 · Babcock, L., Recalde, M. P., Vesterlund, L., & Weingart, L. (2017). Gender differences in accepting and receiving requests for tasks with low promotability
The study examines gender differences in volunteering for and receiving requests for low-promotability tasks.
Limit: It does not establish a general builder disadvantage or that all service work lacks value.
Empirical task-allocation research · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected through AEA mirror swlb1.aeaweb.org.
Primary source ↗R07 · Benson, A., Li, D., & Shue, K. (2019). Promotions and the Peter Principle
The published sales-firm study examines trade-offs between current performance and managerial matching.
Limit: A role-specific finding does not establish a universal promotion rule or a builder penalty.
Observational personnel study · Source access: Publisher article sections, abstract, and metadata inspected. Published version used rather than a different working-paper sample.
Primary source ↗R08 · Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure
The paper distinguishes dimensions of organizational justice.
Limit: Its validation does not extend to CVT original items or establish attribution accuracy.
Measurement validation study · Source access: PubMed abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R09 · Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies
Shared methods can affect behavioral-research measurements and require design attention.
Limit: No single diagnostic certifies that CVT observations are free of method bias.
Methodological review · Source access: PubMed abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R10 · Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory
Leadership development involves individual and interpersonal processes and longitudinal evaluation.
Limit: The review does not establish the effectiveness of the CVT 90 day curriculum.
Research and theory review · Source access: Publisher abstract, metadata, and available section summaries inspected.
Primary source ↗R11 · DeRue, D. S., & Ashford, S. J. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? A social process of leadership identity construction in organizations
Leadership identity is proposed as a social process involving claims and grants.
Limit: This is a theory, not proof of CVT training effectiveness. DOI aliases were not independently reconciled, so no DOI is supplied.
Conceptual theory · Source access: Published primary paper header and abstract inspected through indexed university-hosted PDF. Direct open unavailable; full-text appraisal not claimed.
Primary source ↗R12 · Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests
Construct interpretation requires a program of validity evidence.
Limit: A reference to this framework does not validate a new scale.
Foundational measurement theory · Source access: APA primary record summary and PubMed metadata inspected. Full-text review not claimed.
Primary source ↗R13 · Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality research: Current practice and recommendations
Reliability alone does not supply a sufficient construct-validity program.
Limit: No reported reliability or validity result exists for CVT items.
Measurement practice review · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R14 · Edwards, J. R. (1994). The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative
Collapsing distinct constructs into congruence indices can create interpretive problems.
Limit: A statistical alternative does not itself establish a normative fairness benchmark.
Methodological critique · Source access: Publisher abstract and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R15 · Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A general approach to causal mediation analysis
Causal mediation requires explicit identification assumptions and sensitivity analysis.
Limit: Temporal ordering and a significant indirect association alone do not identify mediation.
Causal methods · Source access: Author institutional repository abstract, published-paper opening text, and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R16 · Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution
Preregistration distinguishes prospective predictions and analyses from post hoc exploration.
Limit: Registration does not repair a weak design, invalid measurement, or inadequate ethics.
Methodological perspective · Source access: Publisher abstract, authors, and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R17 · Lakens, D. (2022). Sample size justification
Sample-size plans need an explicit justification tied to the study purpose and precision.
Limit: No sample size or power claim for CVT follows from citing this article.
Methodological guidance · Source access: Publisher article introduction, abstract, and metadata inspected.
Primary source ↗R18 · National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research
Respect for persons, beneficence, and justice guide research protections.
Limit: Ethical principles do not constitute local research approval or establish universal regulatory applicability.
Ethical principles · Source access: Official report text and date inspected.
Primary source ↗R19 · Exley, C. L., & Kessler, J. B. (2022). The gender gap in self-promotion
Self-evaluations can differ between equally performing participants in the studied task contexts.
Limit: Task and gender findings do not establish a collective-attribution penalty, stable employee types, or workplace compensation effects.
Experimental research · Source access: Publisher indexed abstract and bibliographic record inspected October 19 2026. Direct opening redirected to an inaccessible CDN; full-text appraisal not claimed.
Primary source ↗R20 · VanEpps, E. M., Hart, E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2024). Dual-promotion: Bragging better by promoting peers
Combining self-promotion with credit to others improved warmth and competence impressions relative to self-promotion alone in the studied settings.
Limit: Impressions and behavioral intentions are not actual workplace pay or promotion. The result does not validate CVT or imply that collective and individual credit are opposites.
Preregistered studies including experiments · Source access: PubMed primary article abstract and metadata inspected October 19 2026. Issue year 2024 retained; online first August 10 2023. Full text not appraised.
Primary source ↗R21 · Ross, M., & Sicoly, F. (1979). Egocentric biases in availability and attribution
Availability of personal contributions and responsibility judgments showed egocentric biases in the studied joint activities.
Limit: Memory and responsibility findings do not show intentional appropriation or validate recognition loss during organizational adoption.
Five experiments on joint activity · Source access: University-hosted primary paper header and abstract inspected October 19 2026. Fifteen-page paper accessible; full-text critical appraisal not claimed.
Primary source ↗R22 · National Information Standards Organization (2022). ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022 CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy
CRediT provides a structured taxonomy for differentiated contributions to scholarly outputs.
Limit: A scholarly metadata standard does not validate an employment assessment, a CVT score, or a documentation intervention.
Scholarly contributorship standard · Source access: Official NISO standard record and CRediT role hub inspected October 19 2026. Approval January 14 2022 and publication February 8 2022 confirmed. Full standard not appraised.
Primary source ↗R23 · Connelly, B. L., Certo, S. T., Ireland, R. D., & Reutzel, C. R. (2011). Signaling theory: A review and assessment
Signaling theory distinguishes sender communication, receiver interpretation, and information asymmetry.
Limit: Using the word signaling does not establish a formal signaling equilibrium, credibility, or a recognition effect.
Theoretical review · Source access: Publisher indexed abstract, metadata, and relevant displayed note inspected October 19 2026. Issue year 2011 retained; online first December 20 2010. Full-text appraisal not claimed.
Primary source ↗Additional practical teaching sources
Checked October 20, 2026. These support narrow practical guidance and do not validate CVT or the course. New dialogues, exercises and offer figures are original fictional teaching material.
General military-transition guidance on offer components; no current salary, personalized valuation or tax recommendation.
General preparation, prioritization and written-term guidance; no guaranteed negotiation outcome.
Basic instrument terminology; actual grant, vesting, sale restrictions and tax questions require their own documents and appropriate advice.
Official general reporting guidance; the course does not adjudicate a claim or determine individual legal deadlines.