The damage of deference: how personal and organizational factors transform deference to leader authority into unethical pro-organizational behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine how employees’ deference to leader authority may induce their unethical pro-organizational behavior (UPB) and whether this translation is more likely to materialize in the presence of two personal factors (dispositional greed and proactive personality) and two organizational factors (workplace status and job rotation). Design/methodology/approach The empirical assessment of the research hypotheses relies on quantitative survey data collected among 350 Canadian-based employees who work in the healthcare sector. The statistical analyses include hierarchical moderated regression. Findings The role of deference to leader authority in stimulating UPB is greater when employees (1) have a natural disposition to always want more, (2) enjoy initiative taking, (3) believe that they have a great deal of prestige in the organization and (4) operate in an organizational environment in which job rotation across different departments is encouraged. Practical implications The results inform managers about the risk that employees’ willingness to obey organizational authorities unconditionally might escalate into negative behaviors that can cause harm to both the organization and employees in the long run, as well as the personal and organizational circumstances in which this escalation is more likely to occur. Originality/value This study extends extant research by investigating the conditional effects of an unexplored determinant of UPB, namely, a personal desire to defer to organizational leaders.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".