Retaliating against abusive supervision with aggression and violence: The moderating role of organizational intolerance of aggression
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
In this study, we examine the relationship between abusive supervision and employee retaliatory behaviours. We conceptualise retaliation as both in-kind retaliation (i.e. supervisor-directed aggression) and intensified retaliation (i.e. supervisor-directed violence) to abusive supervision. We explore whether organisational intolerance of aggression prevents these retaliatory responses. In a three-wave time-lagged study, we collected data from 233 employees. Our findings indicate that employees retaliate against abusive supervision by engaging in supervisor-directed aggression and supervisor-directed violence. We also find support for the moderating role of organisational intolerance of aggression: organisational intolerance moderated the relationship between abusive supervision and both types of retaliatory behaviours. We discuss the implications for how perceptions of organisational intolerance of aggression may work, and the importance of timing in preventing both abusive supervision and employee retaliation.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it