MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969416279 · doi:10.1177/1368430219854801

Disentangling the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and adaptive performance in work teams

2019· article· en· W2969416279 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Rousseau, Caroline Aubé

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup Processes & Intergroup Relations · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicTeam Dynamics and Performance
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité de Montréal
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologySocial psychologyPsychological safetyTeam compositionProcess (computing)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When teams operate in a dynamic and complex environment, their ability to adapt to changing demands is crucial for organizational success. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of empowering behaviors exhibited by team leaders in team adaptive performance by taking into account the mediating role of shared leadership displayed by team members and the moderating effect of access to resources. Data were collected from 82 work teams (i.e., 394 members and 82 immediate supervisors) in a public safety organization. Results of path analyses show that the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and team adaptive performance is mediated by shared leadership. Moreover, we found that the relationship between empowering leader behaviors and shared leadership is moderated by access to resources, such that this relationship is stronger when the level of access to resources is high. Overall, the findings shed light on the process through which team leaders can enhance the adaptive performance of their team.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroup Processes & Intergroup RelationsSame topicTeam Dynamics and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207