MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stuck in the Past? Leader Past Cultural Experience and Its Influences on Group Culture and Outcome

2018· article· en· W2879353171 on OpenAlexaff
Yeun Joon Kim, Soo Min Toh

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonAntecedent (behavioral psychology)Deviance (statistics)Social psychologyPerspective (graphical)SociologyPsychologyPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extant research on the antecedents of cultures posits that cultures result from internal and external changes (the functionality perspective of cultures) or leader idiosyncrasies (the leadership perspective of cultures). The current research seeks to integrate the two perspectives to propose another important, yet neglected, antecedent of cultures: a leader’s past cultural experience. Specifically, we theorize that group leaders transfer cultures from their former groups to the current groups, essentially enacting cultures on the basis of their past cultural experiences. Two studies, one in the field (Study 1) and one in the laboratory (Study 2), find that the current groups’ levels of cultural tightness are predicted by leaders’ experience with cultural tightness in their former groups in which they were followers. In addition, the transferred cultural tightness from the leaders’ former groups to the current groups in turn influences negative (counterproductive work behavior) and positive (promotive and prohibitive voice) forms of group deviance. The theoretical and managerial implications for the leadership and the culture literatures 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207