Cultural Construals of Destructive versus Constructive Leadership in Major World Niches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The common part of leadership culture in a country's organizations is conceptualized here as an adaptation to the non-cultural environment. This society-level study shows that middle managers from 61 societies in 58 countries hold different views on destructive versus constructive leadership profiles depending on the harshness of thermal climate and the degree of collective wealth. The cognitive contrast between more destructive autocratic and self-protective leadership components and more constructive team-oriented and charismatic leadership components is construed as small in harsh/poor environments (e.g. China, Kazakhstan), moderate in temperate climates irrespective of collective wealth (e.g. New Zealand, Zambia), and large in harsh/rich environments (e.g. Canada, Finland). These society-level construals of leadership shed new light on the cross cultural generalizability of theories of people-oriented and task-oriented leadership. In addition, they uncover and clarify the inhibition of managers in richer countries with more demanding climates to complement prosocial with antisocial behavior toward subordinates when appropriate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".