Self-determined leader motivation and follower perceptions of leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose A critical assumption of the organizational leadership literature is that leaders want to engage in effective leadership behaviors (Gilbert and Kelloway, 2014). However, leaders may vary in their motivation to be effective in a leadership role, leading to different levels of performance. Drawing on self-determination theory, the authors address the question of what motivates leaders to engage in transformational leadership behaviors (Gilbert et al., 2016). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The current study examined the effects of self-determined leader motivation for transformational leadership on aggregated follower leadership ratings using a sample of 37 leaders matched with 179 followers in two organizations. Findings Results show how leaders’ own motivation relates to followers’ perceptions of leader behavior, and specifically that, across contexts, some autonomous levels of leader motivation are positively related to follower perceptions of leaders’ active-constructive leadership and negatively related to follower perceptions of passive avoidant leadership. Research limitations/implications The research is limited by a small level-two sample size and cross-sectional design. The results suggest that some forms of leader motivation relate to follower ratings of leadership behavior. Originality/value This study is the first to examine how self-determined motivation for transformational leadership predicts follower perceptions of leadership behavior using a multilevel design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".