Leadership Styles of General Managers and Job Satisfaction Antecedent of Middle Managers in 5-Star Hotels in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leadership styles may differ across countries particularly in aspects such as culture, approach, and language. Expatriate managers in Malaysian 5-star hotels, may have a different approach from local managers, hence the levels of the job satisfaction of middle managers may differ too. Information is still lacking on the influence of expatriate managers leadership styles on employees’ job satisfaction in Malaysian 5-star hotels. The purpose of this paper was twofold, to shed light on employees’ job satisfaction under the leadership of expatriate managers as well as the differences in leadership styles of local and expatriate managers. Results showed that transformational leadership styles such as; idealized influence (behavior), intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation had a significant positive effect on employees job satisfaction. Even transactional leadership styles of expatriates such as contingent reward produced significant positive effect on employees job satisfaction. However transactional leadership of management by exception (passive) of expatriate managers had a significant negative effect on job satisfaction. The combination of five leadership styles of expatriate managers, was able to produce 92.2% of employees’ job satisfaction. Except for management by exception (passive), the other four leadership styles had a positive effect on job satisfaction. Results further revealed that expatriate managers have different leadership styles, with higher individual consideration, and contingent reward score, but lower management by exception (passive) score compared to local managers. The difference in leadership styles enabled expatriate managers to achieve higher job satisfaction scores compared to local managers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".