Contrasting the nature and effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to report findings from two studies that compare the nature (construct validity) and relative effects (incremental predictive validity) of environmentally specific transformational leadership (ETFL) to general transformational leadership. Design/methodology/approach The nature of ETFL was investigated in an empirical study based on a sample of 185 employees. The relative effects of ETFL were examined in an experimental study based on a sample of 155 university students. Findings A confirmatory factor analysis showed that environmentally specific and general transformational leadership are empirically distinct but related. Findings from the experimental study revealed that compared to general transformational leadership and a control condition, participants exposed to ETFL he confederate leader’s environmental values and priorities more highly and engaged in higher levels of pro-environmental behaviors. Research limitations/implications Questions concerning ecological and external validity arise out of the experimental study. Future research should contrast the relative effects of environmentally specific and general transformational leadership across various organizational and cultural conditions. Limitations associated with demand characteristics are also of concern in the experimental study. Future research should include an environmental focus in the control condition to exclude any possible threats related to demand characteristics. Practical implications Results from these two studies provide useful information regarding within-organization environmental leadership training by suggesting that maximal individual and organizational environmental change may best be achieved by training leaders to be as specific as possible regarding their values, priorities and goals. Social implications This research suggests that leaders should engage in ETFL behaviors to have the greatest positive impact on corporate environmental sustainability, and by extension, climate change. Originality/value In two separate studies, the construct and incremental predictive validity of ETFL were assessed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".