Do Subordinates Formulate an Impression of their Manager's Implicit Person Theory?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Implicit person theory ( IPT ) is characterised by the belief that specific attributes of people are generally either more static (i.e. entity beliefs) or more malleable (i.e. incremental beliefs). Within the organisational sciences literature, past IPT research has focused on the impact of managers' IPT beliefs on their own behaviours. The current research advances the extant literature by presenting two empirical studies that assess whether subordinates formulate an impression of their manager's IPT . The results are consistent with subordinates forming such an impression, as subordinates working under the same manager generally agreed on their manager's IPT . Moreover, our results support the convergent validity (e.g. with job satisfaction, turnover intention) and the discriminant validity (e.g. with transformational leadership, subordinates' own IPT perception) of the subordinates' impressions of their manager's IPT . The theoretical and practical implications of the current research, and future directions regarding cross‐cultural differences related to IPT impression, are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".