1983
DOI: 10.2307/1251194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Impact of Channel Leadership Behavior on Intrachannel Conflict

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
48
0
5

Year Published

2002
2002
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
4
48
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in the literature, the significance of the canonical correlation is believed to be insufficient in making valid conclusions, as there are contentious arguments on using the significance of canonical correlation to make conclusion as well as to determine the number of canonical variates or functions to retain for the purpose of making inference. The reason is that significance test tells us absolutely nothing about the magnitude of the relationship (i.e., it does not reveal the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables), and its statistical significance is heavily influenced by sample size; as it is possible for the test to be statistically significant with large sample sizes (see [41,44,45]). On this note, the use of redundancy coefficient was suggested as it reveals the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables.…”
Section: Canonical Correlation Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the literature, the significance of the canonical correlation is believed to be insufficient in making valid conclusions, as there are contentious arguments on using the significance of canonical correlation to make conclusion as well as to determine the number of canonical variates or functions to retain for the purpose of making inference. The reason is that significance test tells us absolutely nothing about the magnitude of the relationship (i.e., it does not reveal the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables), and its statistical significance is heavily influenced by sample size; as it is possible for the test to be statistically significant with large sample sizes (see [41,44,45]). On this note, the use of redundancy coefficient was suggested as it reveals the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables.…”
Section: Canonical Correlation Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A participative leadership style, which has been defined as "joint decision-making or at least shared influence in decision-making by a superior and his or her employees" (Somech, 2003(Somech, , p. 1003, likely benefits the company and its employees in terms of better quality of decisions, increased employee motivation, satisfaction and commitment (Somech, 2003). Participative leaders discuss relevant issues with employees, ask for their opinions and take these into account when making decisions (Schul et al, 1983). In case these discussions take place 'en groupe' they may also generate trickle-round effects as employees will get to know each other's opinions.…”
Section: Trickle Effects: Some Insights From Csr and Organization Stumentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, in the literature, the significance of the canonical correlation is believed to be insignificant in making valid conclusions, as there are contentious arguments on using the significance of canonical correlation to make conclusion as well as determine the number of canonical variates or functions to retain for the purpose of making inference. The reason being that significance test tells us absolutely nothing about the magnitude of the relationship (that is, it does not reveal the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables), and its statistical significance is heavily influenced by sample size; as it is possible for the test to be statistically significant with large sample sizes (see Sherry and Henson, 2005;Schul et al, 1983;Lambert and Durand, 1975;Green, 1978;Laessig and Duckett, 1979). On this note, the use of redundancy coefficient and cross loading was suggested as they reveal the amount of variance shared by the two sets of variables (Sherry and Henson, 2005;Schul et al, 1983;Henson and Smith, 2000;Lambert and Durand, 1975).…”
Section: Canonical Correlation Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%