Using a pattern‐oriented approach to study leaders: Implications for burnout and perceived role demand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Using a pattern‐oriented approach, we identified clusters of leaders who shared theoretically meaningful combinations of transformational, contingent reward, management by exception active, management by exception passive, and laissez‐faire leadership styles. Drawing upon conservation of resources theory, we examined whether leaders who shared a similar pattern of leadership styles differed from leaders who belonged to other profile groups, with respect to felt burnout and perceived role demands. Hypotheses were tested using a time‐lagged field study involving 183 leaders. Using latent profile analyses, we found four theoretically interpretable patterns. Leaders who belonged to the comprehensive cluster (elevated scores on the transformational, contingent reward, and the passive styles; 14.2%) experienced the highest levels of burnout and role demands, whereas those who were disengaged (low scores on all styles; 33.3%) reported the lowest levels. Leaders who exhibited a passive behavioral pattern (elevated scores on management by exception active, management by exception passive, and laissez‐faire relative to the other styles; 27.3%) experienced more burnout and role demands than did leaders who exhibited an optimal pattern (elevated scores on transformational and contingent reward styles relative to the passive styles; 25.1%). The theoretical and practical implications of a pattern‐oriented approach to leadership research were discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".