Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of organizational structure on the degree to which supervisors are perceived to be trustworthy by their subordinates. The manner in which subordinates’ personality traits interact with and moderate these relationships is also examined. Design/methodology/approach – A three-part survey was completed by 137 full-time workers from various industries. Findings – Formalization was positively related to subordinates’ perceptions of their supervisors’ trustworthiness and more strongly for subordinates who ranked higher on straightforwardness. Routinization was also positively related but only for subordinates who ranked low on excitement-seeking. Centralization in the form of hierarchy of authority was negatively related and more strongly for subordinates who ranked higher on competence. Routinization for subordinates who ranked high on excitement-seeking, centralization in the form of participation in decision-making, and span of control were not related. Practical implications – Before pursuing trust-building efforts, supervisors should consider whether and in what way they may already be perceived to be trustworthy by their subordinates based on the structure of their organization and the personality traits of their subordinates. Originality/value – This study is the first to examine the main effects of organizational structure on subordinates’ perceptions of their supervisors’ trustworthiness.
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.010 |
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".