Supervisors' Transformational Leadership and Bullying in the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study tests the relationship between supervisors' transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership and perceived bullying in the workplace. Transformational and transactional leaders can create conditions that make bullying at work less frequent but laissez-faire leadership may cause conflict that can result in bullying. The participants were 288 adults (122 women, 164 men; M age = 38.9 yr., SD = 11.7; M tenure = 7.2 yr.) employed across several organizations. Of the participants, 53.2% were contacted during an evening class in organizational behavior, and the others were workers from a waterproofing company. Scales measuring perceived leadership of a supervisor and perceived bullying at work were administered. Supervisor's transformational and transactional leadership were negatively related to work-related bullying, person-related bullying, and physically intimidating bullying. Transactional leadership was also negatively related to Work-related bullying, perceived Person-related bullying, and perceived Physically intimidating bullying. Supervisor's laissez-faire leadership was positively related to Work-related bullying, perceived Person-related bullying, and perceived Physically intimidating bullying. The use of Bass's model of transformational leadership in relation with the three-factor structure of the Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised is unique in research on leadership and bullying. The relationship between laissez-faire leadership and leadership support results from previous studies: transactional or transformational leadership is likely to provide an environment that makes bullying more rare than under a negative or passive leadership.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".