Gossiping About an Arrogant Leader: Sparked by Inconsistent Leadership, Mitigated by Employee Resilience
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
This study explains the process by which significant changes may take place in how organizations operate in the presence of arrogant leadership: their employees start to believe that their leaders are inconsistent in their actions, and the employees, in turn, engage in negative gossip behavior about these leaders. It also proposes that this process is mitigated to the extent that employees can rely on their own resilience levels. Data collected from employees and their peers in the banking and telecommunication sectors confirm these theoretical predictions. For organizational practitioners, this study thus pinpoints a critical mechanism by which a pretentious leadership approach can upset and deteriorate the organizational status quo: it escalates into negative work behaviors in the form of gossip among employees who believe that their leaders are unreliable. This counterproductive spiral can be contained, however, to the extent that employees are able to bounce back from difficult work situations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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