MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3108110225 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.012

The effect of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior with moderating role of internal locus of control and psychological empowerment

2020· article· en· W3108110225 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qing Zhang, Abdul Rashid Abdullah, Dalowar Hossan, Zongxiang Hou

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicEntrepreneurship Studies and Influences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocus of controlTransformational leadershipPsychologyEmpowermentSocial psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Leadership styleDescriptive statisticsPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current study examined the effect of the style of transformational leadership on innovative work behavior as well as the internal locus of control’s moderating role and psychological empowerment between the relationships of them. We collected data from 422 respondents who are related to family business in Malaysia. Path coefficient analysis was employed to test the hypotheses and SPSS software was used for analyzing descriptive data. The results showed that transformational leadership style, psychological empowerment and internal locus of control have affirmative relationship and significant impact on innovative work behavior. Finally, psychological empowerment and internal locus of control were not found to have moderating effect between innovative work behavior and the style of transformational leadership.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicEntrepreneurship Studies and InfluencesFrench-language works237,207