Leaders' trait signaling effect on followers' psychological contract dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Using signaling theory and the literature on psychological contracts, the authors investigate how leaders' personalities shape their followers' perceptions of the type of psychological contract formed. They also suggest that leaders' personalities impact their followers' perceived contract breach. Furthermore, the authors propose that power distance orientation in organizations acts as an important boundary condition that enhances or exacerbates the relationships between personality and contract type and personality and perceived breach. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected through multiple sources in Pakistan from 456 employees employed in 102 bank branches. Multilevel moderated path analyses provided reasonably good support for our hypotheses. Findings The leaders' personalities impacted the relational contracts of their followers in the cases of extraversion and agreeableness, whereas neuroticism had a significant relationship with the followers' formation of transactional contracts. Similarly, agreeableness, neuroticism and conscientiousness had significant relationships with perceived breach. Finally, the power distance of the followers aggregated at a group level moderated the personality-contract type and personality-perceived breach relationships. Research limitations/implications This research advances understanding of psychological contracts in organizations. More specifically, it shows that the personality of leader would have profound impact on the type of contract their employees form and the likelihood that would perceive the breach of contract. Originality/value This research extends existing personality-psychological contract literature by examining the role of leaders' personalities in signaling to employees the type of contract that is formed and the perception of its breach. The role of power distance organizational culture as a signaling environment is also considered.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".