Police members perception of their leaders’ leadership style and its implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine transformational and transactional leader behavior influence on the leader/follower dyad with respect to organizational commitment (OC) and satisfaction with leader in military setting. Design/methodology/approach – The research is quantitative, where multiple regressions assessed the hypothesized relationships between the transformational leadership, transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership as the independent variables and the subordinates’ satisfaction with their leader, and organization commitment as the dependent variables. The sample studied includes 154 police members in two Middle East (ME) countries. Findings – The results indicated that there were positive linear relationship between some dimensions of transformational and transaction leadership and satisfaction with leadership. There was a negative linear relationship between laissez-faire leadership and satisfaction with leader. The leaders-outcome correlations showed higher scores between transformational leadership style and OC than between transactional leadership style and OC. Research limitations/implications – Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalizability on military institutions in other countries, and/or private institutions. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further. The research includes implications for the development of a satisfaction with leaders, and development of organization commitment in military organizations in the ME. Originality/value – This research fulfills an identified need to study how military organization commitment can be enabled in ME countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".