Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the causes and consequences of varying mental health experiences in the workplace has gained significant research attention, yet little is known about the assumptions people hold about mental health at work, especially with regard to the expectations people may have of their leaders’ mental health. Given people tend to romanticize organizational leaders and have expectations regarding prototypical leader attributes, we consider whether people also hold expectations of leaders’ mental health. Drawing on implicit leadership theories, we propose that people will expect leaders experience better mental health compared to those occupying other organizational roles (e.g., subordinates). Using mixed methods, Study 1 ( n = 85) showed that people expect that those in leadership roles enjoy higher well-being and experience less mental illness than those in non-leadership roles. Using vignettes in which an employee’s health was manipulated, Study 2 ( n = 200) demonstrated that mental illness is incongruent with leadership prototypes. Using vignettes in which organizational role was manipulated, Study 3 ( n = 104) showed that compared to subordinates, leaders are perceived as having more job resources and demands, but people expect that it is leaders’ greater access to organizational resources that facilitates their well-being and inhibits mental illness. These findings extend the occupational mental health and leadership literatures by identifying a novel attribute upon which leaders are evaluated. We conclude by considering the consequences of leader mental health expectations for organizational decision-makers, leaders, and employees aspiring to lead.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".