The effect of university organizational culture on organizational silence and faculty–student interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colleges/universities outside the Seoul metropolitan area (hereafter “non-Seoul universities”) are in a crisis of existence due to a decline in the school-aged population in South Korea. Most non-Seoul universities are making efforts to implement self-rescue measures for survival. This study examines the relationships among different types of organizational culture (innovative, collective, rational, and hierarchical), organizational silence (acquiescent, prosocial, and defensive), and faculty–student interaction as perceived by non-Seoul university professors to provide useful implications for effective human resource management plans for the professors, who are responsible for entrance examinations and education at non-Seoul universities in crisis. An online survey was employed to collect data from professors at private community colleges/universities outside the Seoul metropolitan area. Responses from 421 professors were used for data analysis. Results are as follows. First, when professors perceived innovative and collective cultures, their defensive silence decreased while prosocial silence increased. Second, when rational culture was perceived, defensive silence increased while prosocial silence decreased. Third, acquiescent silence increased while prosocial silence decreased when hierarchical culture was perceived. Fourth, faculty–student interaction was enhanced when innovative and collective cultures were prevalent. Finally, prosocial silence had a positive effect on faculty–student interaction. The findings imply that if university managers change policy to encourage professors to perceive the university culture as innovative and collective, prosocial silence, which is positive from the organization’s perspective, will increase, facilitating interactions between professors and students.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".