Spiritual leadership, workplace spirituality and their effects on meaningful work: Self-transcendence as mediator role
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In increasing their productivity and attitudes in serving the community, every work they do should be considered meaningful both for themselves and for others. Many aspects influence the emergence of meaningful work, including the spiritual leadership style applied by the leader to his subordinates, the spirituality factor in the workplace that affects, and the internal need factors that are reflected in the form of self-transcendence. This is where the strategic function of the institution plays a role in coordinating and integrating spiritual leadership, spiritual workplace, self-transcendence within the individual and the creation of meaningful work is based on the principle of benefits both for themselves and for society so that the function of the Government as a public servant can run well. The purpose of this study was to examine and analyze the relationship between spiritual leadership and spirituality in the workplace towards self-transcendence and realizing meaning in work (Meaningful Work). The population of this study was ASN from 5 agencies and agencies under the Bengkulu city government, namely the Education Office, the Population and Civil Registration Service, the Health Service, the Tourism Office, the Youth and Sports Service. The number of samples was 150 people by convenience sampling method. The research method begins with validity and reliability testing with Confirmatory Factor Analysis. This is followed by an explanation of the statistical descriptions related to the respondent's profile, hypothesis testing using the SEM method by taking into account the goodness of fit test. The results showed that all hypotheses were accepted except the hypothesis of the effect of spiritual leadership on meaningful work by mediating self-transcendence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".