MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395018100 · doi:10.61838/kman.jarac.6.2.1

Investigating the Relationship Between Coping Styles, Alexithymia, and Management Styles with Job Satisfaction (Case Study: The Employees of the Maad Group)

2024· article· en· W4395018100 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Samira Sadat Miri, Hoshang Zahiri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaPsychologyJob satisfactionSocial psychologyManagement stylesCoping (psychology)Applied psychologyClinical psychologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The personnel of any organization are considered its most principal and enduring assets; hence, understanding their needs for the implementation of organizational programs is essential. The present study aimed to investigate the relationship between coping styles, alexithymia, and management styles with job satisfaction among the employees of the Maad Group. Materials and Methods: The research method of this study was descriptive-correlational. The study population consisted of employees of the Maad Group in Tehran in the year 2021, from which 127 individuals were selected through convenience sampling. The research instruments included the Smith, Kendall, and Hulin Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (1969), the Short Form of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire by Endler and Parker (1990), the Toronto Alexithymia Questionnaire (1986), and the Schmitt Management Styles Questionnaire (1998). Data were analyzed using Pearson's correlation coefficient and SPSS software version 22. Findings: The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between job satisfaction and democratic management style, goal-oriented management style, participative management style, and laissez-faire management style, as well as coping strategies (P<0.01). There was also a significant negative correlation between job satisfaction and alexithymia (P<0.01). A significant positive relationship existed between job satisfaction and problem-focused coping styles, while a significant negative relationship was found with emotion-focused and avoidance coping styles (P<0.01). Significant relationships were observed between job satisfaction and identifying feelings, difficulty describing feelings, and externally-oriented thinking (P<0.01). Conclusion: It can be concluded that there is a relationship between coping styles, alexithymia, and management styles with job satisfaction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207