Feedback-Seeking Behaviour and Leader Support: An Attachment Theory Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Organizations rely heavily on human capital to succeed and maintain competitive advantage in today’s fierce economic environment. Organizations that make effective use of feedback practices have greater business growth and more productive employees. In this thesis, I apply Attachment Theory to organizational research to more thoroughly understand working relationships and proactive behaviour. My study explores the relationship between attachment style and frequency of feedback-seeking behaviour, and the impact of leader support. Examining these relationships is important because feedback sharing is a critical tool in the workplace to encourage improved workplace behaviour and performance, however, there is a critical gap in the literature regarding the factors that encourage or discourage this behaviour. The results demonstrate a positive relationship between attachment anxiety and frequency of feedbackseeking, and a negative relationship between attachment avoidance and frequency of feedbackseeking, although neither finding is significant. Further, the interaction effect of leader support was also not significant. Future research should consider replicating the study and making appropriate modifications to mitigate limitations such as sample size and selection bias.</p><div><br></div><div><br></div>
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.102 | 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".