MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108978667 · doi:10.1108/lodj-03-2014-0056

The effects of authentic leadership on turnover intention

2015· article· en· W2108978667 on OpenAlexaff
Garazi Azanza, Juan A. Moriano, Fernando Molero, Jean-Pierre Lévy Mangin

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership & Organization Development Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentic leadershipWork engagementStructural equation modelingPsychologyTurnover intentionOriginalityPromotion (chess)Social psychologyPerceptionWork (physics)Organizational commitmentPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between employees’ perception of authentic leadership and their turnover intention as mediated by employees’ work-group identification (WID) and work engagement. Design/methodology/approach – Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the data from 623 Spanish employees. Findings – Results show that authentic leadership has a negative effect on turnover intention and positive effects on work engagement and WID. The direct relationship between authentic leadership and turnover intention was found to be partially mediated by employees’ work engagement. Practical implications – One of the strongest implications that may be drawn from this study is that authentic leaders can influence employees’ turnover intentions by positively enhancing their engagement. Thus, the study highlights authentic leadership as a key element for retaining valuable employees through the promotion of employees’ work engagement. Originality/value – To the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to analyze the association between authentic leadership and turnover intention and the meditational effect of work engagement and WID.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.172 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations115
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeadership & Organization Development JournalSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207