Turning a Blind or Critical Eye to Leader Value Breaches: The Role of Value Congruence in Employee Perceptions of Leader Integrity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do employees react when an organizational leader commits a value breach (i.e., behaves in a way that employees perceive as inconsistent with the organization’s espoused values)? Prior research provides a mixed view: Employees may conclude that the leader lacks integrity, or they may maintain their perception of the leader’s integrity, despite the breach. We focus on the role of person–organization value congruence in determining employee reactions and propose competing predictions that value congruence is positively (“blind eye effect”) or negatively (“critical eye effect”) associated with employee perceptions of leader behavioral integrity following a breach. In Study 1, field survey data suggested that value congruence was positively associated with the perceived integrity of a leader who had committed a breach. However, two follow-up studies using an experimental vignette methodology revealed additional nuance. An integration of our three studies indicated that before the occurrence of any breaches, employees with high value congruence perceive leaders as higher in integrity than do employees with low value congruence (pre-breach sacralization), but when leaders commit one or more value breaches, high value congruence employees react more harshly—lowering their integrity perceptions to a greater extent (the critical eye effect). As a result, as leaders commit more and more breaches, the initially positive relationship between value congruence and perceived leader integrity weakens and eventually becomes negative. Our findings offer important contributions to theory, research, and practice related to organizational values and 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".