Influence tactics and perceptions of transformational leadership
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study examined the association between four influence tactics known to be effective in generating a target's commitment to a task and perceptions of transformational leadership. Eighty military personnel were rated by 181 peers on four influence tactics and four transformational leadership factors. The influence tactics of rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation and collaboration were expected to differentially predict idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. Results show that rational persuasion significantly contributed to the variance in all four transformational leadership factors. Inspirational appeals made significant contributions to the variance in idealized influence and inspirational motivation. Consultation and collaboration did not significantly contribute to explaining the variance in any of the four transformational leadership factors. These results suggest that training in rational persuasion and inspirational appeals may increase perceptions of transformational leadership style.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it