The relationship between leadership style and employee performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to advance critical theoretical insights into the idea of “relational bureaucratic leadership” and its implications for public administration in developing countries (DCs). In doing so, the paper sets out new agendas for public service governance in DCs that recognizes the changing nature and emerging complexities of both the public service and society. Design/methodology/approach This is an exploratory study which synthesises literature in management, human resources, leadership studies and public administration, to understand the limitations of mainstream approaches to bureaucratic leadership in DCs, particularly SSA, with a view of identifying alternative practices. Findings Findings from this paper suggest that public service governance in DCs are embedded in complex dynamics between power relations, complexity and social norms, and bureaucratic leaders should, therefore, focus on building relationships as a means of deepening trust and enhancing cooperation among critical actors. The case for a shift in focus to “relationality” reflects changes in the broader global political economy, including emerging wicked and multi-faceted policy problems that require heterodox and context-sensitive responses from governments and greater collaboration among key stakeholders. Originality/value The analysis of the limitations of traditional approaches to public service governance in this essay reveals the importance of a shift from a preoccupation with conventional organizational forms and functions, to place greater emphasis on social networks and relationships, as a way of improving leadership efficiency in the public services of DCs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".