MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734934107 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v8n5p28

A Comparison of Leadership Theories in an Organizational Environment

2017· article· en· W2734934107 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformational leadershipSituational leadership theoryLeadership theoryTransactional leadershipLeadership studiesShared leadershipServant leadershipLeadershipCross-cultural leadershipSituational ethicsPsychologyLeadership styleManagementNeuroleadershipPublic relationsSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This analysis will review three leadership theories focusing on how leader’s influence and motivate employees to accomplish tasks and goal achievement in an organizational environment. The three theories chosen are: (1) Situational Leadership Theory, (2) Path-Goal Leadership Theory, and (3) Leader-Member (LMX) Theory. In each leadership theory, background information, development and effectiveness, and strengths and weaknesses will be analyzed. Also, each leadership theory will be compared and contrasted according to similarities and differences. After each of these theories of leadership is reviewed, the last section will discuss Transformational Leadership, which has become an emerging leadership theory because it inspires, motivates, and energizes employees.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.261 · 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