Comparisons draw us close: The influence of leader‐member exchange dyadic comparison on coworker exchange
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
Abstract Members compare their differential leader‐member exchanges (LMXs) to understand the triadic relationship (Member A, Member B, and their common leader); this will affect how members interact. Prior research based on balance theory assumes that the two members have a consensus on the structure of the triadic relationship, to argue that when Member A perceives their LMX to be lower than that of Member B, such an LMX imbalance would drive Member A to interact negatively with Member B. Comparison of LMX, however, reflects one's subjective perception, which may not be shared by the other. Therefore, we draw on social comparison theory to examine both members’ comparisons of LMX simultaneously and suggest that when they both perceive the other's LMX as better than their own, they may engage more in affiliative behaviors and develop a higher‐quality coworker exchange (CWX). The results of two studies consistently supported these hypotheses. This research extends our understanding of LMX in triadic relations and demonstrates that mismatched perceptions of LMX dyadic comparison between two members (i.e., both perceive an LMX imbalance) could motivate members to develop a positive relationship.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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