The Relationship Between Management Style Perceptions and Motivation Levels of the Employees Working in Provincial Organizations of the General Directorate of Sports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between management style perceptions and motivation levels of the employees working in provincial organizations of the General Directorate of Sports. The population of the study included the employees carrying on their duties in Provincial Organizations of The General Directorate of Sports, and the sample included totally 407 employees with 112 females and 295 males working in fourteen provinces selected from seven geographical regions of Turkey with a population density representing Turkey. “Management Style Scale” and “Motivation Scale” were used in the study. The “Management Style Scale” (MSS) developed by the researcher included the components and subscales as “authoritarian management style”, “protective management style”, “supportive management style”, “collaborative management style”, “laissez-faire management style”, and “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivation styles developed by Mottaz (1985). T-Test and One-Way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) were used for the analysis of the obtained data. As result, a significant and positive relationship was found between intrinsic motivation and management style sub-dimensions. In addition, a significant and positive relationship was also determined between the dimensions of extrinsic motivation and authoritarian management style and laissez-faire management style.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".