MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2557945070 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n12p157

The Effect of Perceived Spiritual Leadership on Envy Management of Faculty Members through the Role of Professional Development Mediation and Job Satisfaction

2016· article· en· W2557945070 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zarin Daneshvar Haris, Reza Yousefi Saidabadi, Kiumars Niazazari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMediationJob satisfactionContext (archaeology)Higher educationProfessional developmentSocial psychologyPedagogySociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">Purpose: the present study aimed to investigate the effect of perceived spiritual leadership on envy management of faculty members of Islamic Azad Universities of East Azerbaijan province through the role of professional development mediation and job satisfaction.</p><p class="apa">Methodology: this study was a descriptive and correlational study that was conducted using structural equation modeling. The sample of this study consisted of all faculty members, with the rank of assistant professor or higher, in the academic year of 2014-2015. In qualitative stage, 20 individuals were selected to design the primary model and questionnaire and to model the sample; some 316 faculty members were used.</p><p class="apa">Findings: the results of this study indicated that there is a significant and positive relationship between the variables so that in investigating the direct and indirect relationship, the effect of perceived leadership on envy management was not directly significant. But through professional development mediation and job satisfaction of faculty members, the spiritual management was effective in organizational jealousy management. Also, the model enjoys from the goodness of fit.</p><p class="apa">Conclusion: According to the results, it was concluded that through providing the context for spiritual leadership and envy management, creating professional development and job satisfaction, the university administrators could prepare faculty members for more effective roles away from envy and towards educational, research and service efficiencies.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.364
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207