Leadership Styles, Motivation, Communication and Reward Systems in Business Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research project aims to analyse the leadership and communication styles adopted by Angolan companies, particularly in Benguela province, and their impact on the results of these organisations. In Angola, and with the recent assimilation of the principles of market economy, the figure of the leader must abandon old management paradigms and integrate the modern principles of management of organisations into their functions, not only focusing on achieving the goals of the company but also on creating an environment conducive to the participation and involvement of employees, articulating strategies so that everyone grows in and with the organisation. Thus, the general objective of the research is to assess the managers’ perception of their leadership style (transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire) and its impact on the organisation’s performance. To this end, a quantitative study was carried out using a questionnaire, using, among other dimensions, the multifactorial leadership questionnaire (MLQ), distributed to a sample of 227 managers. Data were analysed using SPSS using descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, standard deviation) and inferential statistics (t-test, ANOVA, Tukey’s test). The results show that the leaders perceive their leadership styles as transformational and recognise that communication, motivation, and the reward system strongly impact the organisation’s performance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".