How authentic leadership affects green creativity: the role of self-reflection and psychological capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on social cognitive theory, this study aims to explore the effect of authentic leadership on employee green creativity by studying the mediating role of reflection and rumination and the moderating role of psychological capital. Design/methodology/approach This study used experience sampling methodology to test hypothesis. Specifically, this study applied two-level path analysis to analyze 1,290 observations from 129 employees. Findings The results show that authentic leadership positively influences reflection but negatively influences rumination, which in turn impact employees’ green creativity. Psychological capital positively moderates the effects of authentic leadership on reflection and negatively moderates the effects of authentic leadership on rumination. Furthermore, psychological capital moderates the linkages between authentic leadership, self-reflection and employee green creativity. Practical implications Organizations should make efforts in promoting authentic leadership and recruiting employees who possess high psychological capital. Moreover, managers can make effective efforts to stimulate employees’ reflection and mitigate rumination, thereby facilitating organizational sustainable development. Originality/value In investigating green issues related to employees’ daily cognitive processes, this study focuses on within-personal reaction mechanism to authentic leadership, concerning the moderating effect of individual psychological capital.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".