Effective Leadership and Culture in Iran: An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On analyse dans cet article les caractéristiques du leadership efficace en Iran, puis on envisage les liens possibles entre ce profil de leadership et les dimensions culturelles du pays. A partir des données fournies par 300 managers provenant de plus de 60 organisations relevant de trois secteurs industriels, on commence par utiliser les dimensions du projet GLOBE pour évaluer la culture iranienne dont les scores sont comparés à ceux d’autres pays. S’appuyant à la fois sur l’ emic et l’ etic du leadership, les auteurs développent sept dimensions du leadership: encourageant, dictatorial, visionnaire, familial, modeste, loyal et réceptif. Ils soutiennent que certaines de ces dimensions traduisent les aspects universels (ou etic ) du leadership (éncourageant, dictatorial), alors que d’autres procèdent de l’ emic , c’est‐à‐dire de la spécificité culturelle du leadership (modeste, familial, loyal). Les résultats sont discutés en terme de positionnement de la culture iranienne entre des entrelacements fondamentaux et des traditions culturelles complexes. On aborde enfin la question des retombées sur les recherches à venir.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".