MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Collective Self-construal Buffers Opportunistic Silence After Ineffective Supervision?

2022· article· en· W4286665670 on OpenAlexaff
Sadia Jahanzeb

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCultural Differences and Values
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilenceInterdependenceSocial psychologyAuthoritarianismHarmPsychologyConstrual level theoryBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using self-construal theory, this study seeks to investigate the relationship between employees' exposure to authoritarian leadership and job performance while also considering the mediating role of opportunistic silence and the moderating effect of collective self-construal. It aims to reveal that leader's controlling and demanding behavior hinders job performance because employees reserve their opinions to gain advantage for themselves while accepting harm of others. This mediating role of opportunistic silence is mitigated if employees care for collective welfare and group enhancement. This study accordingly identifies a key mechanism—employees' intentional attempt to withhold work-related ideas to achieve selfish gains—by which authoritarian supervision hampers job performance, and it reveals how this process might be contained if employees have interdependent self-construal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicCultural Differences and ValuesFrench-language works237,207