Are Rational Self-Interested Leadership Behaviors Contributing to the Workplace Bullying Phenomenon in Canada and the United States?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Workplace bullying is a phenomenon in American and Canadian organizations that has been ignored for many years and as a result targeted employees are suffering [1-3]. Workplace bullying is at epidemic proportions with little done to address the issue. The workplace for bullied employees has become an uncivilized and hostile environment [4]. Leaders who embrace a rational self-interested approach to leading are contributing to the workplace bullying phenomenon. Using Chi Square tests of independence, the study was conducted to determine the extent to which rational self-interested leaders rely on bullying behaviors when interacting with employees. Three hundred fifty-five employees were asked to complete a survey consisting of fifteen bullying behavior statements. The results of the Chi Square tests indicate a significant relationship exists between employee demographics vs. certain bullying behaviors associated with threats to personal standing, professional status and destabilization. The results further reveal that rational self-interested leaders are relying on bullying in three areas: threat to personal standing, threat to professional status and destabilization. It was also noted that if the rational self-interest leader did not make changes the problem of workplace bullying would continue to escalate. The recommendation was that rational self-interested leaders could benefit by changing their perspective on employees to include more personal and humane treatment, rewards, and recognition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".