Investigating the Relationship Between Coping Styles, Alexithymia, and Management Styles with Job Satisfaction (Case Study: The Employees of the Maad Group)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".