Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a posit terjemahan - Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a posit Bahasa Indonesia Bagaimana mengatakan

Both transformational leadership an

Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive influence on
job satisfaction (s = .21, ƒ¿ < .05; s = .23, ƒ¿ < .05). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported.The multiple regression analyses showed no direct effects of transformational leadership (hypotheses 3a and 3b) or empowering leadership on TOCB and TACB (hypotheses 5a and 5b). In summary, the results in Table 4 show that transformational and empowering leadership have an indirect, positive effect on TOCB (.08 = .21 * .38, .09 = .23 * .38, respectively). Furthermore, job satisfaction has an indirect, negative influence on TACB (-.07 = .21 * -.35, -.08 = .23 * - .35, respectively) also through job satisfaction (hypotheses 3b and 5b).
The Table 4 results also indicate that aversive leadership is directly, negatively related to
job satisfaction (s = -.17, ƒ¿ < .10; hypothesis 6). Thus, hypothesis 7a was supported. That is,
aversive leadership was directly, negatively related to TOCB (s = -.22, ƒ¿ < .10). There was also an indirect, negative effect of aversive leadership on TOCB (-.06 = -.17 * 38). Results provide no support for the direct, positive relationship between aversive leadership and TACB
(hypothesis 7b). However, the indirect effect of aversive leadership on TOCB and TACB (.06 = -.17 * -.35), was supported. On the basis of these results, we can conclude that aversive
leadership has both direct and indirect negative effects on TOCB and an indirect, positive effect on TACB through job satisfaction.
The results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of directive leadership on job
satisfaction, TOCB, and TACB. Hypotheses 8, 9a, and 9b were not supported. Also, transactional
leadership did not affect job satisfaction (hypotheses 8 and 10). Finally, the overall results are summarized by the path diagram in Figure 1. Note that while aversive leadership works directly on TOCB, both transformational leadership and empowering leadership influence both TOCB and TACB indirectly through job satisfaction.
0/5000
Dari: -
Ke: -
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1: [Salinan]
Disalin!
Both transformational leadership and empowering leadership had a positive influence onjob satisfaction (s = .21, ƒ¿ < .05; s = .23, ƒ¿ < .05). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 4 were supported.The multiple regression analyses showed no direct effects of transformational leadership (hypotheses 3a and 3b) or empowering leadership on TOCB and TACB (hypotheses 5a and 5b). In summary, the results in Table 4 show that transformational and empowering leadership have an indirect, positive effect on TOCB (.08 = .21 * .38, .09 = .23 * .38, respectively). Furthermore, job satisfaction has an indirect, negative influence on TACB (-.07 = .21 * -.35, -.08 = .23 * - .35, respectively) also through job satisfaction (hypotheses 3b and 5b).The Table 4 results also indicate that aversive leadership is directly, negatively related tojob satisfaction (s = -.17, ƒ¿ < .10; hypothesis 6). Thus, hypothesis 7a was supported. That is,aversive leadership was directly, negatively related to TOCB (s = -.22, ƒ¿ < .10). There was also an indirect, negative effect of aversive leadership on TOCB (-.06 = -.17 * 38). Results provide no support for the direct, positive relationship between aversive leadership and TACB(hypothesis 7b). However, the indirect effect of aversive leadership on TOCB and TACB (.06 = -.17 * -.35), was supported. On the basis of these results, we can conclude that aversiveleadership has both direct and indirect negative effects on TOCB and an indirect, positive effect on TACB through job satisfaction.The results demonstrate that there is no significant effect of directive leadership on job
satisfaction, TOCB, and TACB. Hypotheses 8, 9a, and 9b were not supported. Also, transactional
leadership did not affect job satisfaction (hypotheses 8 and 10). Finally, the overall results are summarized by the path diagram in Figure 1. Note that while aversive leadership works directly on TOCB, both transformational leadership and empowering leadership influence both TOCB and TACB indirectly through job satisfaction.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:[Salinan]
Disalin!
Kedua kepemimpinan transformasional dan memberdayakan kepemimpinan memiliki pengaruh positif pada
kepuasan kerja (s = 0,21, ƒ¿ <0,05; s = 0,23, ƒ¿ <0,05). Dengan demikian, hipotesis 2 dan 4 yang analisis regresi supported.The tidak menunjukkan efek langsung dari kepemimpinan transformasional (hipotesis 3a dan 3b) atau memberdayakan kepemimpinan pada TOCB dan TACB (hipotesis 5a dan 5b). Singkatnya, hasil pada Tabel 4 menunjukkan bahwa kepemimpinan transformasional dan memberdayakan memiliki, efek positif langsung pada TOCB (0,08 = 0,21 * 0,38, 0,09 = 0,23 * 0,38, masing-masing). Selanjutnya, kepuasan kerja memiliki, pengaruh tidak langsung negatif pada TACB (-.07 = 0,21 * -.35, -.08 = 0,23 * - 0,35, masing-masing) juga melalui kepuasan kerja (hipotesis 3b dan 5b).
Table 4 hasil penelitian juga menunjukkan bahwa kepemimpinan permusuhan langsung, berhubungan negatif dengan
kepuasan kerja (s = -.17, ƒ¿ <0,10; hipotesis 6). Dengan demikian, hipotesis 7a didukung. Artinya,
kepemimpinan permusuhan langsung, berhubungan negatif dengan TOCB (s = -.22, ƒ¿ <0,10). Ada juga, efek negatif tidak langsung kepemimpinan permusuhan di TOCB (-.06 = -.17 * 38). Hasil tidak memberikan dukungan untuk langsung, hubungan positif antara kepemimpinan permusuhan dan TACB
(hipotesis 7b). Namun, efek tidak langsung dari kepemimpinan permusuhan di TOCB dan TACB (0,06 = -.17 * -.35), didukung. Atas dasar hasil ini, kita dapat menyimpulkan bahwa permusuhan
kepemimpinan memiliki kedua efek negatif langsung dan tidak langsung pada TOCB dan tidak langsung, efek positif pada TACB melalui kepuasan kerja.
Hasil menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada pengaruh yang signifikan dari kepemimpinan direktif pada pekerjaan
kepuasan, TOCB, dan TACB. Hipotesis 8, 9a, dan 9b tidak didukung. Juga, transaksional
kepemimpinan tidak mempengaruhi kepuasan kerja (hipotesis 8 dan 10). Akhirnya, hasil keseluruhan dirangkum oleh diagram jalur pada Gambar 1. Perhatikan bahwa sementara kepemimpinan permusuhan bekerja langsung pada TOCB, baik kepemimpinan transformasional dan memberdayakan kepemimpinan pengaruh baik TOCB dan TACB tidak langsung melalui kepuasan kerja.
Sedang diterjemahkan, harap tunggu..
 
Bahasa lainnya
Dukungan alat penerjemahan: Afrikans, Albania, Amhara, Arab, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahasa Indonesia, Basque, Belanda, Belarussia, Bengali, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Burma, Cebuano, Ceko, Chichewa, China, Cina Tradisional, Denmark, Deteksi bahasa, Esperanto, Estonia, Farsi, Finlandia, Frisia, Gaelig, Gaelik Skotlandia, Galisia, Georgia, Gujarati, Hausa, Hawaii, Hindi, Hmong, Ibrani, Igbo, Inggris, Islan, Italia, Jawa, Jepang, Jerman, Kannada, Katala, Kazak, Khmer, Kinyarwanda, Kirghiz, Klingon, Korea, Korsika, Kreol Haiti, Kroat, Kurdi, Laos, Latin, Latvia, Lituania, Luksemburg, Magyar, Makedonia, Malagasi, Malayalam, Malta, Maori, Marathi, Melayu, Mongol, Nepal, Norsk, Odia (Oriya), Pashto, Polandia, Portugis, Prancis, Punjabi, Rumania, Rusia, Samoa, Serb, Sesotho, Shona, Sindhi, Sinhala, Slovakia, Slovenia, Somali, Spanyol, Sunda, Swahili, Swensk, Tagalog, Tajik, Tamil, Tatar, Telugu, Thai, Turki, Turkmen, Ukraina, Urdu, Uyghur, Uzbek, Vietnam, Wales, Xhosa, Yiddi, Yoruba, Yunani, Zulu, Bahasa terjemahan.

Copyright ©2024 I Love Translation. All reserved.

E-mail: