A game of reciprocity? The effect of leader–follower <i>moqi</i> congruence on task performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Building on the person–supervisor fit theory, this paper examines how and when leader–follower moqi congruence positively impacts task performance. Design/methodology/approach With data collected from 174 leader–follower dyads in 41 project teams in Shanghai, China, the authors use polynomial regression and response surface plots to test the hypotheses on the effects of leader–follower moqi congruence. Findings Leader–follower moqi congruence positively affects followers' task performance, mediated by coordination. Task coordination was of higher quality when the congruence is achieved at a high level of moqi than at a low level. The effect of leader–follower moqi congruence on task performance (mediated by coordination) was weaker when leader-member exchange was low than when it was high. Originality/value This study identifies why leader–follower moqi can improve coordination and task performance. It extends person–supervisor fit theory and is an enhancement for moqi research and practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".