MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2733025155 · doi:10.1108/ebr-12-2015-0181

Transformational leadership and cultural minorities: a conceptual model

2017· article· en· W2733025155 on OpenAlexaff
Amina Malik, Parbudyal Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Business Review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipSocializationDiversity (politics)OriginalityValue (mathematics)Conceptual frameworkConceptual modelCultural diversityProcess (computing)SociologyPublic relationsSocial psychologyPsychologyKnowledge managementPolitical scienceSocial scienceEpistemologyCreativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how diversity of cultural minority newcomers and transformational leadership affect the socialization process of cultural minorities in organizations. Design/methodology/approach A conceptual model is developed based on diversity theory and past research studies. Findings The authors highlight the roles of transformational leadership and diversity mindsets in facilitating their socialization process. Research limitations/implications Using quantitative studies, future research should attempt to test the propositions presented in this paper by conducting employee-level studies. Practical implications The focus of diversity training needs to be changed from preventing unfairness and discrimination to viewing diversity as an important informational resource. Leaders of cultural minority newcomers should be trained to lead in a more transformational manner. Originality/value Scholars suggest that research on cultural minorities is lacking and their integration in organizations is examined less extensively. In this paper, the authors fill this gap and present a conceptual model examining the socialization process of cultural minorities.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.905
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.428
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.079 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Business ReviewSame topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207