Ethical Leadership Affecting Mahidol University Ethical Climate Organization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was 1) to study the ethical leadership characteristics of the administrators at Mahidol University, 2) to examine the ethical organizational climate at Mahidol University, and 3) to explore the influence of ethical leadership on the ethical organizational climate at Mahidol University, and 4) to propose strategies for developing ethical leadership among administrators at Mahidol University that can positively impact ethical organizational climate and its practical implementation. A mixed methods approach was employed by utilizing both questionnaires and interviews as research instruments. The sample consisted of 400 support staff at Mahidol University, who were recruited through a multi-stage sampling technique. Additionally, five administrators, deputy administrators, and unit heads were recruited using snowball sampling to provide recommendations for the proposed strategies. Data were analyzed using percentages, means, standard deviations, confirmatory factor analysis, and content analysis for qualitative data. The research revealed that the ethical leadership characteristics of administrators at Mahidol University encompassed six factors: responsibility, trustworthiness, respect, fairness, good citizenship, and supportiveness. The ethical organizational climate at Mahidol University, on the other hand, comprised five factors: results orientation, rule orientation, legal and professional ethics, concern for others, and self-orientation. Moreover, ethical leadership showed that the strongest direct positive influence on the dimensions of ethical organizational climate was supportiveness and fairness. This was followed by trustworthiness, responsibility, good citizenship, and respect. The proposed strategies for developing ethical leadership included administrators serving as role models by practicing ethical behavior, making fair decisions, communicating organizational governance principles, establishing ethical standards, and ensuring equal treatment and consideration for individuals. These strategies aligned with utilitarian theory, which emphasized maximizing the overall happiness and well-being of individuals as the criterion for judging right and wrong actions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".