Assessing the influence of transformational leadership on competitive advantage through important innovations and quality results: Case of railway industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of quality and innovation in today’ 21 st century cannot be over emphasised, therefore organisations require leadership styles that can embrace both innovation and quality in order to confront today’s dynamic competitive fierce environment. Sometimes organisations fail to attain or maintain their competitiveness because of limited understanding regarding these strategic variables. There is little research that has attempted to analyse the direct and indirect-relationships among these strategic variables. Therefore this study attempted to bridge the gap in literature by analysing how important-innovations and quality-results as TQM practices influence the association between transformational leadership-style and competitive advantage using sample data collected from TAZARA employees in management using Jamovi. The study shows that transformational leadership style, quality-results and important innovations have significant positive effects on competitive advantage. The results also show that important-innovations and quality-results both individually and collectively partially mediate the relationship between transformational-leadership and competitive- advantage. Managers and advocates of transformational leadership style are emphasised to be aware and cautious of quality results and important innovations at all-time especially in today’s dynamic environment.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".