The role of peer respect in linking abusive supervision to follower outcomes: Dual moderation of group potency.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We develop a model in which abusive supervision undermines individuals' perceptions of the level of respect they are accorded by their group peers, which in turn reduces their performance and disconnects them psychologically from the organization. High group potency strengthens each of these connections. We studied the theorized relationships across 3 periods during a 10-week residential organizational entry program. Group potency, representing shared group perceptions, moderated relationships at the individual level. These included the negative relationship between abusive supervision (Time 1) and perceived peer respect (Time 2) and the relationship between perceived peer respect and organizational commitment, organizational identification, and turnover intention (Time 3). We found stronger relationships between abusive supervision and perceived peer respect--and between peer respect and the attitudinal outcomes and turnover intention--among groups with higher potency. Perceived peer respect was also positively related to followers' task performance. We discuss implications of the conceptual framework and findings for future research and theory development concerning how groups and individuals respond to abusive supervision and to treatment by their peers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".