Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the competitive world of business, organizational commitment is considered to be one of the fundamental organizational issues facing managements. Committed employees have become a valuable contribution to a variety of organizations. Since leaders’ behaviors play an important role in organizational commitment, managers are encouraged to motivate employees to strengthen their commitments to competently serve their organizations. The structures of societies in addition to cultural values are influential factors in determining appropriate leader behaviors. Since Paternalistic leadership is an integrated part of Asian organizations, Malaysia was selected as the country of choice to conduct this study. This research was designed to investigate the relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment; Each dimension was investigated separately in accordance to quantitative methodology. In total, 287 questionnaires from the employees of Malaysian SMEs were selected to be used for the purpose of data analysis. Data management and analysis were performed using SEM-PLS. The statistical results indicated the significant relationship between paternalistic leadership and Affective, Continuance, and Normative Commitment. Paternalistic leadership is a significantly persuasive factor that elevates the phenomenal of affective and normative commitment. This finding also came to the attention that under the umbrella of Paternalistic leadership, distress of losing a specific leader might be a determining factor for employees to continue their cooperation and employment with the organization. In addition to offering theoretical contributions, this study has provided a practical guideline for Malaysian SMEs managers who aim to increase commitment among employees who function under their Paternalistic 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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".