The Impact of Varying Styles of Leadership on Team Dynamics and Project Success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examines the impact that distinct styles of leadership have on team dynamics and project success. By combining purposive, convenience, and networking sampling techniques to avoid overreliance on one single sampling technique, we used partial least squares structural equation modelling on a sample of 188 responses obtained from a semi-structured matrix-based questionnaire. Our findings revealed that autocratic leadership has no significant impact on team dynamics or project success. All other styles considered (i.e. servant leadership, agile leadership, ethical leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) have a statistically significant impact on team dynamics and project success. Furthermore, servant leadership and agile leadership have a strong positive correlation with team dynamics and project success, whereas ethical leadership exhibits a moderate positive linkage with team dynamics and project success. Laissez-faire leadership and autocratic leadership have weak positive correlations with team dynamics and project success. Lastly, team dynamics impact project outcomes in a statistically significant manner. Our analysis concludes that the most effective leadership style among all the above is servant leadership, which has a statistically significant positive impact on team dynamics and project success.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".