MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406752540 · doi:10.38035/jafm.v5i4.826

The Influence of Leadership Style on Employee Performance: The Role of Employee Motivation at PT AHI Tbk

2024· article· en· W4406752540 on OpenAlex
Niknik Ahmad Munawar, Fifit Hadiaty

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Accounting and Finance Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEmployee Performance and Management
Canadian institutionsEncana (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeadership styleBusiness administrationPsychologyBusinessEmployee engagementStyle (visual arts)ManagementSocial psychologyEconomicsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to analyze the impact of leadership style, work environment, and motivation on employee performance at PT. AHI Tbk. Using a quantitative method with a sample of 200 employees, data were analyzed using Smart PLS 3. The results indicate that leadership style has a significant effect on employee performance, with a t-statistic of 4.326 and a p-value of 0.000. Conversely, the work environment did not show a significant effect on employee performance, as evidenced by a t-statistic of 1.253 and a p-value of 0.211. Additionally, motivation did not function as a significant mediator between leadership style and employee performance. These findings suggest that improving employee performance can be achieved through the development of effective leadership styles, although the work environment aspects require further evaluation. The recommendations generated from this study include enhancing leadership training programs, improving working conditions, and focusing on employee motivation development. This research is expected to provide insights for management and stakeholders to improve employee performance through a more holistic approach.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.239 · 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