The Relationship between Ethical Leadership Styles and Employees Effective Work Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South African Higher ]Education Institutions are diverse, highly debated by academia as well as the portfolio committee on higher education and structured with a strong focus on the customer being students, with a negligible concern for the academic and professional employees. The revolutionary changes at Higher Education Institution have gestured the importance of both leadership and employees to support the transformational strategy at these institutions. Higher Education transformation has a lot to do with leadership - not the leadership of the Vice-chancellor, but the leadership of a collective of people, executive management leadership, line management leadership, academics and administration, and other stakeholders (MacGregor, 2015:28; 2012). The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between the ethical leadership style of line management leadership, and academic and administrative at a South African Higher Education Institution in KwaZulu-Natal. Data analysis utilized a quantitative method with an academic sample size of 165 (52.9%) and administrative sample size of 147 (47.1%). The study used descriptive and linear regression analysis to examine the two variables. The descriptive findings revealed that ethical leadership style was not present at the line management leadership level. The inferential analysis findings exhibited a significant strong linear relationship of 74.7% between line management leadership and employee items. Data analysis revealed that line management leadership style had an impact on employees’ performance and behavior at the institution. Thus, it is imperative to have a fully engaged workforce in order for an institution to achieve greater levels of innovation, intrapreneurship, design thinking and financial management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".