Leadership Styles on Employee Performance Among Supervisors of Petroleum Retailing Sector in Jordan: Employee Engagement as a Mediator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article aims to examine perceptions of employee engagement (EE) among petroleum retailing sector supervisors as a possible mediator between leadership styles (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and employees’ performance (EP). We proposed a mediation model and postulated that leadership styles (LS) could increase perceptions of EE, which theoretically correspond to the three styles of leadership: transformational leadership (TSFL), transactional leadership (TSCL), and laissez-faire (LF). Subsequently, EE is linked to leadership styles and EP in keeping the extant body of social exchange theory (SET) research. In this study, a model developed based on survey research is used. Data was collected from 425 supervisors in the petroleum retailing sector in Jordan. The partial least squares (Smart-PLS) analysis is used to run the measurement and structural models. The findings show that leadership styles (transformational and transactional) are significantly and positively related to EP. In addition to the non-significantly relationship between LF leadership and EP. On the other hand, EE is not mediate the relationship between TSCL and EP.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".