Bibliographic record
Abstract
The top management has the pivotal role in this process. The employee morale and motivation should always be kept high by many different ways. It is the leadership style that builds and sustains the employee motivation for better output, and healthy and thriving work environment. Research shows that leadership style impacts employees in a number of ways like employee job satisfaction, morale, performance, motivation, creativity, organizational commitment and trust. The purpose of this research is to study how teachers perceive the leadership styles of their managers and their own motivation level. The study also delves into studying the relationship between leadership styles and teachers? motivation. This a descriptive study design with a sample size of 80 teachers in Mumbai area. The tools were constructed by the researcher and content validated using expert judgement. The Cronbach Alpha for Leadership Style was 0.875, and for Teacher Motivation was 0.895. It was observed that more than 75 % teachers are happy about the leadership, and 99% feel motivated to work in their schools. Pearson Correlation between the two variables was 0.458 (significant at 0.00001level), indicating significant and positive correlation between School Managers? Leadership Style and Teacher Motivation. The null hypothesis therefore, is rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis. In other words, teacher motivation is high, if the leadership style is found to be encouraging and accommodating. The results are in sync with the available literature. For leaders and managers, understanding and nurturing employee motivation is essential for building a high - performing organization. Effective leadership inspires employees to commitment, trust and long - term loyalty. The ability to shift between styles in response to situational demands is a hallmark of effective leadership in modern, fast - paced, and competitive business landscapes. What is true for business organizations, same is true for educational institutes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".