The salience of remote leadership: implications for follower self-control and work-life balance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether remote work moderates the mediated relationship between leadership behavior (transformational leadership and leader incivility), followers' self-control, and work-life balance. Design/methodology/approach The authors conducted a three-wave, time lagged study of 338 followers. Drawing on social information processing theory, a moderated mediation model was proposed: it was hypothesized that remote work strengthens the relationship between leadership behavior (transformational leadership and leader incivility), follower self-control, and subsequent work-life balance (moderated mediation). The theoretical model was tested using OLS regression in SPSS. Findings The results show that working remotely strengthens the mediated relationships between leadership behavior, self-control, and work-life balance. Practical implications Organizations need to consider the interaction between remote work and leadership. Leader behaviors have a stronger relationship with follower self-control and work-life balance when the frequency of remote work is higher, so it is important to increase transformational leadership and reduce leader incivility in remote contexts. Leadership training programs and respectful workplace initiatives should be considered. Originality/value This study demonstrates the importance of leader behaviors for followers' self-control and work-life balance in relation to remote work. This study is the first to examine the boundary condition of remote work in relation to leadership behavior, follower self-control, and work-life balance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".