THE ROLE OF ASSERTIVE LEADERSHIP IN REDUCING ORGANIZATIONAL DISTANCE AN ANALYTICAL STUDY OF THE OPINIONS OF A SAMPLE OF EMPLOYEES IN A NUMBER OF AL-FURAT AL-AWSAT TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY FORMATIONS

The current research aims to explore the relationship between assertive leadership through its dimensions (management, knowledge, values, action, capabilities), and the organizational distance with its dimensions (legal, social, geographical). A number of formations of Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University were selected together to conduct the research, numbering 4 formations. (69) employees were selected as a sample for the research


INTRODUCTION
firmness are seen as ineffective.They are perceived as better leaders and have good judgment.The most effective leaders are equipped with a set of skills as they balance their emphasis on forming positive bonds with people at multiple levels across the organization and communicating clearly and personally (Folkman, 2013;1).And just as the results of the (Banks, 2020) study confirmed that assertive leadership is more honest and has a greater degree of integrity, assertiveness requires an understanding of the context and the ability to evaluate your behavior and modify it accordingly.You can discover assertive people at work as calmly confident, not arrogant or aggressive, and their body language is guaranteed but comfortable, which makes eye contact and maintain natural beauty when speaking, and they are confident in what they say, as the assertive person is calm and comfortable in communication (Banks, 2020).
Referring to a study (Molinsky, 2017;7), he stressed that firmness in the workplace is necessary and that it generates confidence and knows that you can deal with any situation that presents itself to you throughout the working day.Firm communication is important so that communication between leaders and subordinates can be firm and does not cause misunderstanding between leaders and subordinates and communicates the problem correctly in order to find the right solution in dealing with problems that occur between subordinates .And confirmed the results of the study (Argris, 1957, 50), which was concerned with the issue of bridging and reducing organizational distances between employees and leaders, which contributes to improving relations through a positive approach, taking into account the growth and complexity of organizations and the expansion of their branches, which contributed to the emergence of the role of firm leaders and the development of work relations between them and subordinates, which leads each of them to adopt a specific behavior that is a reflection of the nature of the prevailing relations between administrative leaders and employees through the way in which capabilities are distributed and how these are managed Mature behaviors at work, which provides an opportunity for self-monitoring and securing interests by satisfying the vision, and then the ability to satisfy the relative needs according to different movements through the philosophy of the increasing activities of the organization, which contributes to reducing the organizational distances so that the concerned parties in the field of work move within the intended area, and then there are no cases of estrangement and courtship appears to the extent that the parties know each other in a transparent manner, and this confirms that transparency in relations between leaders and workers generates good impressions on the two parties towards each other, and then fears disappear and cases are denied.doubt.Contrary to what previous studies presented, the current research is based on examining the relationship between assertive leadership and organizational distance, and working with the idea of social, geographical, and legal distances and counting them as the effective starting point for determining organizational distances through function indicators.The crisis and the organizational distance, and to achieve the scientific goals of the research, it may consist of four topics.The first topic included: the scientific methodology.The second topic dealt with the theoretical framework of the research, while the third topic dealt with the applied side.The fourth topic specialized in reviewing the conclusions and the most important recommendations reached by the research.

The Scientific Methodology of The Current Research
The Research Problem Firm administrative leaders had and still have the ability to communicate, which is one of the personal skills that a leader must possess.Maintaining a positive attitude in communication is an important matter that must be taken into account for anyone who wants two-way communication without either party misinterpreting the message they mean.Assertive communication skills are considered One of the good communication behaviors is to develop an educational organization owned by a leader.This affects partially or completely the existing organizational distances between the various organizational levels.Undoubtedly, the education sector is one of the most important and sensitive sectors, as it provides its educational services to all members of society without exception, which requires a leadership style.Firm In addition to the above, the current research seeks to answer the following question: "To what extent is firm leadership a way to reduce the organizational distance between the researched university formations?"

The Importance of Research
The importance of the research is to seek to provide numerical indicators about the reality of assertive leadership, early detection of this type of leadership and its impact on reducing the organizational distance, and because it has a positive impact that is reflected in the work of the researched organization in the future .

Research objectives
The current research aims to achieve the following: Diagnosing the extent of saturation of firm leadership behavior at Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University from the point of view of the researched sample .Investigating the limits of the organizational distance for the formations of Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University from the point of view of the researched sample.Identifying the limits of the relationship between firm leadership and organizational distance in the formations of Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University.

The Duration of The Research
The time period for the research extended from (1/4 to 1/9/2023), which included collecting data through the availability of books and studies on the Internet (the Internet) and a survey of libraries, as well as distributing the questionnaire in an electronic way to the various formations of Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University.

Research Criteria :
The research was based on the following criteria: Assertive leadership scale: Assertive leadership was measured through the measurement (Ohlal, 2019: 22), which measures assertive leadership through the dimensions included (will, knowledge, abilities, values, action) and it may consist of (19) items.The Organizational Distance Scale: It was relied on (Haiquan et al., 2021: 6) to measure the organizational distance, which included three dimensions (social distance, legal distance, geographical distance), which includes (12) items.In all of the aforementioned scales, a scale was used.Likert quintile that ranges from completely agree with a score of 5, to completely disagree with a score of (1 .( To The descriptive analytical approach was followed in the current research, if this method helps to collect data through the questionnaire form that is distributed to the research sample, and then the questionnaire data was tabulated and analyzed to reach the desired results .

The Research Community and Sample
The definition of the research community and its sample, and the clarification of its characteristics, is considered a basic necessity, on which the field aspect of the research is based.Given the nature of the research, and its variables represented by firm leadership and organizational distance, the research community was represented by all employees in a number

METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES
of formations of the Middle Euphrates Technical University extended in geographical locations in the governorates Multiple, where the research community reached approximately 280 employees, with the exception of the service staff, because the paragraphs of the questionnaire do not apply to them, and to ensure obtaining the required number, the researchers distributed 78 questionnaires, and 69 forms valid for statistical analysis were retrieved.The following table shows the research community and its sample:

The Concept of Assertive Leadership
Assertiveness is the description of how an individual interacts in a situation where his position and interests conflict with the position and interests of others, and personal relationships help assertive leadership because communication is effective and building more successful professional relationships, and assertive leadership brings benefits to the organization, because opinions can be freely expressed and solutions that meet In the interests of all, individuals receive periodic and constructive feedback about their performance (Junior, &amp;Guonik, 2018;112).It is important to stress that assertiveness is not about what is right or wrong, but how leaders deal with problems, stand up for their opinions, and articulate their opinions clearly and directly (Judge et al. 2009).In this sense, assertive leadership is defined as the leadership that supports assertive organizations and involves individuals in leadership positions who truly value openness, honesty, and respect for people, and express that through their assertive leadership behavior (Townend, 2007: 212).It was also known as changing those behavioral patterns that limit the development of skills and attitudes in the leader to achieve the greatest amount of change, and greater flexibility to understand others, which is consistent with the requirements of the organization (Marsal, 2021: 65).As for (Suripatty, 2021: 10) he explained firm leadership as leadership of an honest, positive and respectful nature without offering any offense to others with the freedom of individuals to express their ideas and activities, and their ability to communicate between leaders and subordinates.It has been defined as leadership that helps create productive work environments, increases job satisfaction, resolves conflicts, and enables individuals to work more efficiently in the organization and experience greater professional success (Santora, 2007:85).While Ames (12, 2009) defined assertive leadership as a communication style in which individuals express their ideas and expectations with their teams in a confident and considerate manner through cooperation between the leader and individuals at all levels of the organization.
Based on the foregoing, the researchers see that firm leadership is "the one that maintains clear and logical thinking despite all the troubles, searches for the truth and adheres to it with determination, whatever the cost, and proves in crises with all patience and is able to make the right and rational decisions.Decisiveness is a term that denotes strength and rigor."Well behaved and set things straight without hesitation.

The importance of firm leadership
The personality of the leader is of great importance with regard to the achievement of set goals, as well as in the organization of tasks and teamwork and in the success of the organization.Therefore, when it comes to leadership, it is necessary to study the different types of leaders and how this affects interpersonal relationships in the work environment.Among the extensive specialized literature on leadership is Assertive leadership because of the possibility of linking it to other theories and aspects of human behavior.The individual can be influenced by the environment, values, emotions, and even his beliefs, which presents different behaviors in certain situations.There are advantages and disadvantages in using each behavior.However, assertive behavior facilitates the solution of personal problems, and increases the sense of selfefficacy.Self-esteem and enabling improvements in the quality of relationships.Assertive leadership is also important in the organization because it contributes to increasing productivity, accelerating problem solving, and reducing tension between individuals.Assertive leadership seeks to achieve a balance between the goals of the organization and the goals of workers (Junior, & Guonik, 2018: 122).

High assertiveness
High assertiveness is defined as the pursuit of personal interests in a non-dominant or nonaggressive manner to constantly defend personal goals without regard for the rights or opinions of others so that they are not affected by a particular situation and only care about what is accomplished, not how it is done.High assertiveness can be distinguished from aggressiveness because the pursuit of personal goals is done in a non-threatening manner and without anger .

Moderate assertiveness
Moderate assertiveness is defined as the ability to speak up for personal rights while respecting the rights of others, taking the opinions of others into account while speaking up for personal goals, actively making legitimate claims, and being willing to compromise.

Low assertiveness
Low assertiveness is defined as yielding to opposing viewpoints when it is not necessary and can be distinguished from passivity because the low assertive individual will still speak up for their rights but not clearly state their personal opinion, whereas That the passive individual will submit to opposing points of view instead of pressing the issue more, and Figure (1) illustrates these three levels.

Dimensions Of Assertive Leadership
Mentioned (Hilal, 2019: 22) that there are five dimensions of firm leadership, which are as follows: After Will (how to be ( This dimension represents the quality of the leader's presence and the manner in which it is based on firmness rules After knowledge (what should I know) Dedication to work and exerting more effort without direction leads to failure or modest results.After knowledge, it consists of three parts: self-knowledge, world knowledge, and work knowledge .

After ability (what should I have)
This dimension represents the quality of the leader's relations with the changing relative values, and the means that he must possess.They are generally the various forms of driving energy.In addition to money, there are other engines such as time, experience, information, relationships, reputation, and power .
Values dimension (How to control and discipline): This dimension represents the higher goals and the quality of the relationship with the values that man seeks, such as freedom, justice and happiness, which represent self-guiding principles of behavior whose function is control and discipline.
After the action (how do I work): This dimension represents the quality of the movement and the action at work to change the situation for the better

The Organizational Distance The Concept of Organizational Distance
In light of the intense competition between business organizations and their constant endeavor to acquire a large market share, the leading business organizations began to open new branches for them in other regions or countries away from the parent company's site to cover the largest possible geographical area and provide their products and services to the largest possible number of customers, which leads to the emergence of the concept of The so-called organizational distance that business organizations seek to reduce in order to be able to control and manage all its branches properly.From this point of view (Ambos, Håkanson, 2014: 19) believes that the organizational distance arises in business organizations that have more than one branch, and it is a negative situation mostly because of the remoteness of the central administration from the subsidiary departments that do not have the authority to make decisions in critical cases, especially if they are These branches are in remote areas that are difficult to reach or contact.While (Nebus, Chai, 2014) sees that the organizational distance is the extent of the distance between the parent business organization and its affiliated branch or branches, and business organizations try to shorten or reduce this distance as much as possible before opening new branches to reduce the costs incurred in the future.(Khleif et al., 2019(Khleif et al., : 1305) ) believes that the organizational distance is the nature of the prevailing relations between administrative leaders and employees, the extent to which managers approach employees, listen to their opinions and suggestions, and meet their requirements.He believes (et al, 2021: 11 Haiquan) that the organizational distance is divided into the physical organizational distance and the organizational distance of authority.
Physical organizational distance: It refers to the straight-line distance between the physical location of the organization's branches, i.e. the registered location of the organization's branches on Google Maps, and the local regulatory authority.
The organizational distance of authority: It refers to the distance between the administrative level and the central government.

The negative effects of organizational distance
believes (Konara, 2018: 8-10) that the existence of a vast organizational distance has negative effects on business organizations, including: The presence of a large organizational distance is considered a great burden on business organizations, as they must act according to the regulations, instructions, and laws prevailing in the place where the branches of these organizations are located, which may differ from what they are in the mother country, or even in the same country, because the external environment differs from region to another The presence of a large organizational distance in the branches of the organization makes direct communication and exchange of experiences between them difficult and costly .
While (Chacar and Vissa ,2005) see that the negative effects of organizational distance are : The existence of a large organizational distance brings the organization additional costs represented by the difficulty of adaptation and increases the time spent in transferring material resources between the branches of the organization Increasing regulatory distance exacerbates the effect of asymmetric information on the market as regulators need to spend more time, energy, money and other resources to gather relevant information on competing firms.

Regulatory distance dimensions
sees (et al, 2021: 6 Haiquan) that there are three dimensions to the regulatory distance, namely: 1.Geographical dimension: This dimension measures the distance between the location of the parent company and its subsidiaries, and the greater the organizational distance, the greater the cost incurred by the organization, which leads to the stakeholders spending more human, material and financial resources to collect information related to the branches of the organization and the surrounding environment in particular If these branches are in remote areas 2.The legal dimension: It means the extent to which the branches of the organization adhere to the laws, regulations, instructions, and customs prevailing in the environment in which they are located in order to maintain legitimacy, and the behavior of the organization must always be consistent with the system of prevailing social values to avoid entering into legal problems .
3.The social dimension: It refers to the extent to which managers cooperate with employees, listen to their opinions and take them into account, and work to solve their problems in a way that increases the bonds of trust between the two parties and achieves a state of job satisfaction .
Based on the foregoing, we test the following hypotheses and their sub-hypotheses: The first main research hypothesis states: There is no significant correlation between assertive leadership and its dimensions (values, will, knowledge, action, ability in the organizational distance) The research hypothesis is the first main zero: the absence of a significant correlation between assertive leadership and its dimensions (values, will, knowledge, action, ability) in the organizational distance .
The research's main alternative hypothesis: There is no significant effect relationship between assertive leadership and its dimensions (values, will, knowledge, action, ability) in the organizational distance .
The first main zero hypothesis of the research: the absence of a significant effect relationship of assertive leadership with its dimensions (values, will, knowledge, action, ability) in the organizational distance.and  In this paragraph, a test of the normal distribution of the variable of assertive leadership is conducted to determine whether its data is distributed normally or not distributed normally, as the normal distribution will support the accuracy of the results, and the normal distribution of the data is determined or not by identifying the values of skewness and flattening, as the rule depends on The normal distribution of the data if the values of each of (skewness and flatness) are confined between (1.96+) and (1.96-).1) that all the values of (Skewness), (Kurtosis) were within the acceptable limits and close to (zero), and then all data for the variable of assertive leadership are normally distributed.

B-Testing the normal distribution of the regulatory distance variable
In this paragraph, a normal distribution test is performed for the regulatory distance variable to determine whether its data is normally distributed or not, as this will support the accuracy of the results, and the normal distribution of the data is determined or not by identifying the values of skewness and flattening, as the distribution rule depends the data is normal if the values of (skew and flatten) are confined between (+1.96) and (-1.96).(2) that all the values of (Skewness), (Kurtosis) were within the accepted limits and close to (zero), and then all the data of the regulatory distance variable are normally distributed.

A-Statistical description of the assertive leadership variable
In this section, the statistical description of the assertive leadership variable and its dimensions are conducted to give a complete picture of the data through the use of measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion.The statistical description test is conducted by adopting the arithmetic mean as a measure of central tendency, while the standard deviation is adopted as a measure of data dispersion (the homogeneity of the opinions of the research sample).It should be noted that the hypothetical mean (3) will be adopted.If the general rate of the arithmetic mean is higher than the hypothetical mean, this indicates the spread of the dimension in the research sample .It is clear from Table (3) that the general arithmetic mean for all dimensions of assertive leadership was higher than the hypothetical mean, and this indicates the spread of these dimensions in the research sample, in addition to that the results of the standard deviation were close for all dimensions of assertive leadership.

B-The ordinal importance of the dimensions of assertive leadership
This paragraph deals with the arrangement of the dimensions of the independent variable (assertive leadership), and these dimensions are arranged through the arithmetic mean values, as in Table (4) below .

Table (4) Arranging the dimensions of assertive leadership
Source: Prepared by researchers based on the output of spssv.26 It is clear from table (4) above that the dimension of knowledge came in the first place, followed by the dimension of ability, then the dimension of values, and the dimension of will came fourth, while the dimension of action ranked fifth.In addition, the arithmetic mean of the assertive leadership variable was (3.234), while the standard deviation was (0.583).

C-Statistical description of the organizational distance variable
In this section, the statistical description of the organizational distance variable and its dimensions is conducted to give a complete picture of the data through the use of measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion.The statistical description test is conducted by adopting the arithmetic mean as a measure of central tendency, while the standard deviation is adopted as a measure of data dispersion (the homogeneity of the opinions of the research   4) that the general arithmetic mean for all dimensions of the organizational distance was higher than the hypothetical mean, and this indicates the spread of these dimensions in the research sample, in addition to that the results of the standard deviation were close and for all dimensions of the organizational distance.

D-The ordinal importance of organizational distance dimensions
This paragraph deals with the arrangement of the dimensions of the dependent variable (the organizational distance), and these dimensions are arranged through the arithmetic mean values, as in Table ( 6) below.6) above that the geographical dimension came in the first place, followed by the legal dimension, while the social dimension ranked third.In addition, the arithmetic mean of the organizational distance variable was (3.227), while the standard deviation was (0.660).

Third: -Criteria for evaluating the measurement model
The measurement model is evaluated based on validity and stability, as stability refers to the degree of the scale's ability to give similar results upon re-testing, so it reveals the consistency of the scale.While honesty demonstrates the scale's ability to measure (measure what it was designed for), therefore it reveals the accuracy of the scale.And based on (Hair et al., 2017), the measurement model according to the Partial Least Squares Structural Modeling (PLS-SEM) is evaluated through four criteria and according to the following, based on (Hair et al., 2017) : A-Internal Consistency Reliability: The acceptable limits for composite reliability ≥ 0.60, while Cronbach's alpha ≥ 0.70.
B-Indicator Reliability: The acceptable limits for the standard saturation of the indicator are (Outer loading ≥0.70) .
C-Average variance extracted: The acceptable limits for the extracted average variance are (AVA ≥ 0.50) .

D-Discriminant Validity:
The acceptable limits for the ratio of the heterochromatic trait to the unilateral trait (HTMT<0.90).
The measurement model is evaluated for the research variables according to the following: 1-Evaluation of the measurement model for the assertive leadership variable: The measurement model for the assertive leadership variable is evaluated to match standards according to acceptable levels and limits.7) above that the results of all criteria (Cronbach alpha), (compound stability) and (average extracted variance) were within the acceptable limits for the dimensions of the variable of assertive leadership.On the other hand, the results of (saturation) of the paragraphs were all within acceptable limits as well, except for paragraph (k1) that did not achieve the required saturation so it was deleted, in addition to that, paragraphs (w4) and (k2) did not achieve the ideal standard of saturation, except When deleting these paragraphs, there is no tangible increase in the rest of the standards, and then they were retained.Table (8) below presents the results of the discriminatory validity test for the dimensions of the assertive leadership variable.8) that all dimensions have achieved the acceptable limits of the (HTMT) standard, ie it was less than (0.90 .)2-Evaluation of the measurement model for the regulatory distance variable: The measurement model for the regulatory distance variable is evaluated to conform to standards according to acceptable levels and limits.Figure ( 4) and Table (9) show the results of the evaluation of the measurement model.9) above that the results of all criteria (Vacronbach), (compound stability) and (average of the extracted variance) were within the acceptable limits for the dimensions of the regulatory distance variable.On the other hand, the results (saturations) of the paragraphs were all within acceptable limits as well, with the exception of paragraph (ge1) that did not achieve the ideal standard of saturation, but when these paragraphs are deleted, there is no tangible increase for the rest of the standards, and then they were retained .
Table (10) below presents the results of the discriminatory validity test for the dimensions of the organizational distance variable .8) that all dimensions have achieved the acceptable limits of the (HTMT) standard, ie it was less than (0.90).

Fourth: -Testing the correlation between the research variables
The correlation relationship is tested at the macro level (between research variables), as well as testing the correlation relationship at the sub-level (that is, at the level of dimensions).Table ( 11) below shows the correlation relationship between the research variables at the macro and sub-levels .The first main research hypothesis states that there is no significant correlation between assertive leadership and organizational distance.It should be noted that the level of morality assumed by the researchers is (0.05), and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between assertive leadership and organizational distance has It reached (0.62), which is significant at a significant level of (0.05).Based on these results, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted.
-The first sub-hypothesis stated that there is no significant correlation between the will and the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between the will dimension and the organizational distance has reached (0.36), which is significant at a significant level (0.05), and based on These results reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
-The second sub-hypothesis stated that there is no significant correlation between knowledge and organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between the knowledge dimension and organizational distance has reached (0.61), which is significant at a significant level of (0.05), and based on These results reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
-The third sub-hypothesis stated that there is no significant correlation between the ability and the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between the ability dimension and the organizational distance has reached (0.56), which is significant at a significant level (0.05), and based on These results reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
-The fourth sub-hypothesis stated that there is no significant correlation between values and the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between the values dimension and the organizational distance has reached (0.56), which is significant at a significant level (0.05), and based on These results reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.
-The fourth sub-hypothesis stated that there is no significant correlation between action and the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (11) that the value of the correlation coefficient between the action dimension and the organizational distance has reached (0.58), which is significant at a moral level of (0.05), and based on These results reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis.

Fifth: -Testing the effect between the research variables
The effect is tested at the macro level (among the research variables), as well as the effect is tested at the sub-level (i.e. at the level of dimensions) as follows: A-Analyzing and testing the second hypothesis: The second research hypothesis indicates that there is no significant effect of assertive leadership on the organizational distance.Table (12 12) above, it is clear that the coefficient of determination has reached (0.50), and this indicates that (0.50) of the changes that occur in the dependent variable (organizational distance) are explained by the independent variable (firm leadership).While the value of the path coefficient (effect) was (0.70), which is significant at the level of significance (0.05), and the value of (t) was (10.56). in the regulatory distance .
B-Testing the sub-hypotheses: The sub-hypotheses indicate that there is no significant effect of the dimensions of assertive leadership in the organizational distance.Table (13  -The first sub-hypothesis: There is no significant effect of the will in the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (13) and Figure ( 6) above that the path coefficient (influence) of the will dimension in the organizational distance has reached (-0.09), and it is not significant when Significance level (0.05), and based on these results, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted, which states that there is no significant effect of will in the organizational distance .
-The second sub-hypothesis: There is no significant effect of knowledge in the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (13) and Figure (6) above that the path coefficient (influence) of the action dimension in the organizational distance has reached (0.40), which is significant at the level of significance (0.05), and based on these results, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, which states that there is a significant effect of knowledge on the organizational distance .
-The third sub-hypothesis: There is no significant effect of the ability in the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table ( 13) and Figure ( 6) above that the path coefficient (influence) of the ability dimension in the organizational distance has reached (0.10), and it is not significant at the level Significant (0.05), and based on these results, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted, which states that there is no significant effect of the ability in the regulatory distance .
-The fourth sub-hypothesis: There is no significant effect of the values in the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table ( 13) and Figure ( 6) above that the path coefficient (influence) of the values dimension in the organizational distance has reached (0.10), which is not significant at the level of Significant (0.05), and based on these results, the alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis is accepted, which states that there is no significant effect of values in the organizational distance .
-The fifth sub-hypothesis: There is no significant effect of the action on the organizational distance, and it is clear from Table (13) and Figure (6) above that the path coefficient (influence) of the action dimension in the organizational distance has reached (0.26), which is significant at the level of significance (0.05), and based on these results, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, which states that there is a significant effect of the act on the organizational distance.
The theoretical side of the research stressed the need to follow the style of assertive leadership, in a way that develops the ability to deal with subordinates in a manner that creates with them a spirit of responsiveness, respect, a sense of contentment, and keenness to achieve goals, and therefore it is necessary to use levels of firmness related to situations to achieve better personal relationships.
The results showed that assertive leadership has a positive, moral and direct impact on reducing the organizational distance, by strengthening good social relations, enacting laws and legislation that must be implemented, and possessing knowledge and experience to deal with the employees of the university's various formations, in a way that reduces time, effort, and the depleted distance in transferring various material resources between the branches of the organization .
The results of the research showed that there is a relationship between assertive leadership and organizational distance.The higher the level of assertive leadership, the less organizational

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
distance limits work.Organizations are increasingly looking for assertive leaders who contribute to improving the organization's performance levels, improving relations between individuals, and reducing the organizational distance limits between them and their leaders.
The less the organizational distance between the branches of the organization and the parent organization, the higher the level of governance, the greater the organizational density, and the greater the degree of self-discipline among the members of the organization.

Recommendations :
The researchers recommend the university presidency to: Maintaining levels of firm leadership among individuals in the researched university .The need to expand the scope of the research to include a large sample of employees at Al-Furat Al-Awsat Technical University.Follow the method of long studies to investigate the relationship between assertive leadership and organizational distance.The level of assertive leadership may not be strong enough to affect the organizational distance, so other variables should be tested.Business organizations should provide financial support to their branches and provide them with all the qualified human resources they need in various disciplines, which would enable them to make decisions and solve their problems without the need to refer to the parent organization.The need for business organizations to adopt an effective communication system that ensures direct communication with their branches at any time, using modern technology.

Figure ( 1 )
Figure (1) Levels of assertive leadership Figure (2)  shows the hypothetical model of the current research.

Figure ( 2 First
Figure (2) hypothetical research model Preparation of researchers based on research hypotheses Figure (3) and Table (7)  show the results of the evaluation of the measurement model.

Figure ( 3 )
Figure (3) Measurement model for the assertive leadership variable Source: Prepared by researchers based on the output of smart-plsv.4It is clear from Figure (3) and Table (

Figure ( 4 )
Figure (4) Measurement model for the organizational distance variable Source: Prepared by researchers based on the output of the spssv.26program ) andFigure (5)  below illustrate the effect between research variables at the macro level.

Figure ( 5 )
Figure (5) The effect of assertive leadership on the organizational distance Figure (6) The effect of the dimensions of assertive leadership on the organizational distance

Table ( 1
) Results of the normal distribution test for the assertive leadership variable Source: Prepared by the researchers based on the output of the spssv.26program It is clear from Table (

Table ( 2
) Results of the normal distribution test for the regulatory distance variable

Table (
It should be noted that the hypothetical mean (3) will be adopted.If the general rate of the arithmetic mean is higher than the hypothetical mean, this indicates the spread of the dimension in the research sample.

Table (
Source: Prepared by researchers based on the output of the spssv.26program It is clear from Table (

Table ( 6
) Arranging the dimensions of the regulatory distance

Table ( 7
) The results of the evaluation of the measurement model for the assertive leadership variable

Table (
It is clear from the results of Table(

Table ( 9
) The results of evaluating the measurement model for the organizational distance variable

Table ( 11
) Matrix of correlation between research variables

Table ( 13
) results of testing the effect of the dimensions of assertive driving on the regulatory distance Prepared by researchers based on the output of smart-plsv.4