The role of group-level perceived organizational support and collective affective commitment in the relationship between leaders’ directive and supportive behaviors and group-level helping behaviors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine a model linking directive and supportive leadership to group-level helping behaviors via group-level perceived organizational support (GPOS) and collective affective commitment (CAC). Design/methodology/approach Using data from 115 business units of an international retailer, the authors tested and compared the theoretical model against more parsimonious solutions using χ ² difference tests. The hypotheses were examined within a structural model. Findings The results show that GPOS acts as a mediator in the relationship between leadership behaviors and CAC and between directive leadership and group-level helping behaviors. Supportive leadership is directly related to CAC and group-level helping behaviors. Research limitations/implications Implications of these findings for research on supportive and directive leadership are discussed. Originality/value This paper proposed a model that examined intermediate linkages between directive and supportive leadership and group-level helping behaviors. In doing so, the authors provide a preliminary response to recent calls for examination of mediators of task-oriented and relations-oriented leadership effects (Judge et al. , 2004).
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it