Leadership Dimensions Influencing Sustainability Leadership in Sri Lanka: Mediating Effect of Managers’ Ethical Behaviour and Organizational Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the mediation effect of managers’ ethical behaviour and organizational change on the leadership dimensions that influence sustainability leadership among Sri Lankan managers. Manager’s attitudes to organizational change and their ethical behaviour are identified as essential dimensions to achieve sustainable leadership in the business world. While much of the literature underlines the direct relationship between organizational leadership and either organizational change or manager’s ethical behaviour, only a few studies focus on the mediating effect of the manager’s ethical behaviour and organizational change leadership on perceptions of creating a sustainable organization. Sri Lanka is identified as a developing country with strong socio-cultural values that promote sustainability. Understanding what constitutes sustainability leadership in a developing country such as Sri Lanka is worth examining. The responses of 596 managers were analyzed using factor analysis and structural equation modeling. The findings confirm that stakeholder relations are the most influential dimension for creating sustainability leadership. Mediation analysis tests confirmed that the two mediators of managers’ ethical behaviour and change leadership fully mediate the relationships between employee engagement and leaders’ concern for social and environmental sustainability, which concern was identified as the weakest of the three leadership dimensions suggesting that long-term orientation has not much potential for creating sustainability leadership among Sri Lankan managers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".