MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2296972678 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v9n4p131

Effect of Representative Leadership Styles on the Composition of Organization Commitment with the Facilitating Role of Organizational Maturity

2016· article· en· W2296972678 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hamid Hassan, Sarosh Asad, Yasuo Hoshino

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsMaturity (psychological)Organizational commitmentLeadership styleContinuanceNormativePsychologyDimension (graph theory)Composition (language)Style (visual arts)Social psychologyPolitical scienceMathematicsDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study proposes a framework to explore the effect of leadership styles in defining the composition of Organizational Commitment (OC) along effective, normative and continuance dimension. To bring in a more logical choice of leadership styles, limited numbers of representative leadership styles are derived from the long list of styles presented in the contemporary literature. Higher level of organizational maturity is proposed to facilitate the role of leadership style in shaping the composition of OC in three different dimensions. Organizational Maturity is measured by Capability Maturity Model (CMM), stage of Organization Life Cycle and specificity of Organizational Culture. Results support that a more persuasive and participative leadership style enhance the affective and normative commitment while continuance dimension of commitment is maintained under authoritative and unilateral style of leadership.

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)0.012
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 score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207