Transformational leadership or the iron cage: which predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy?
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
This paper investigates the differential effects of transformational leadership and the “iron cage” on trust, commitment and team efficacy at the team level. Transformational leadership has been shown to have positive effects on trust, commitment and team efficacy. However, it could be argued that these results are not due to the leadership but to the idea that the team has developed strong norms that constrain their behavior and “force” them to perform. The rival hypothesis that the iron cage results in trust, commitment and team efficacy is tested using hierarchical regression analysis. We find that transformational leadership in teams predicts trust, commitment and team efficacy over and beyond the perceptions of the iron cage. The iron cage adds to the prediction of commitment only. Results suggest that while encouraging strong values and norms within a team will lead to increased commitment, focusing on transformational leadership in teams is a more effective way to encourage the development of trust, commitment and team efficacy.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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