MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981979529 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2019.10.011

Exploring the influence of transformational leadership on work engagement and workplace spirituality of academic employees in the private higher education institutions in Malaysia

2019· article· en· W2981979529 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anantha Raj A. Arokiasamy, Huam Hon Tat

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersXiamen University
KeywordsTransformational leadershipWork (physics)Workplace spiritualityPublic relationsHigher educationWork engagementPsychologyWork environmentBusinessSpiritualityManagementSociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceJob satisfactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports the findings of a study examining the relationship between transformational leadership, work engagement and workplace spirituality of academic employees in four PHEIs in Malaysia. The perceptions of academic employees regarding the transformational leadership style, work engagement and workplace spirituality were assessed in an empirical study on a sample of 369 full-time academic employees working in higher education institutions in Malaysia. The study found a satisfactorily good level of influence between transformational leadership and workplace spirituality and work engagement. The paper also provides insights into enhancing employees work engagement via transformational leaders through their abilities to create workplace spirituality. The findings also provide evidence that transformational leaders play a crucial role in shaping workplace spirituality and employee's level of work engagement in an emerging country work setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.202
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Citations40
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207