A Comparative Research Study on the Congruency of Expectations Towards Leadership Behaviours Held by Instructors and Their Managers in a Canadian College System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed methods study examined the congruency of the expected occurrence of leadership behaviours held by managers and those held by instructors in a Canadian college setting. The primary question was, “How congruent are the expectations on the occurrence of leadership behaviours between managers and instructors?” The study looked to answer why the expectations were congruent or not and what factors played into the level of congruency or lack thereof. The investigation used a mixed methods approach, combining a statistical analysis of a Likert-style survey measuring the expected occurrence of 30 leadership behaviours and a qualitative analysis of five open-ended follow-up questions to provide additional context to the statistical findings. The study found congruence of the expected occurrence of leadership behaviours for managers and instructors on the 30 measured leadership behaviours. However, the study also revealed that managers and instructors expressed concerns about how the expectations were met. Organizational structures were crucial to driving these expectations in the college system used in this study and played a central role in explaining the differences in expectations. Recommendations include leveraging the results of the study to improve organizational structures and to build stronger relationships within the organizations. Utilizing the Leadership Practices Inventory as a strategic planning tool and conducting additional research that looks into the impact organizational structures and processes have on leadership behaviours are further recommendations. Duplicating the study at similar institutions between all levels within the organizations to confirm its findings found is also recommended. Keywords: leadership behaviours, congruency, organizational structures, expectations
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".