Supervisor incivility, ruminations and insubordination: catalytic effects of supervisor task conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study aims to investigate the relationship between employees' exposure to supervisor incivility and their engagement in insubordinate behavior, by detailing a mediating role of ruminations about interpersonal offenses and a moderating role of supervisor task conflict. Design/methodology/approach The research hypotheses were assessed with three rounds of data, obtained from employees and their peers, working for firms in various industries. Findings An important reason that employees' sense that their supervisor treats them disrespectfully escalates into defiance of supervisor authority is that the employees cannot stop thinking about how they have been wronged. The mediating role of such ruminations is particularly prominent when employees' viewpoints clash with those of their supervisor. Practical implications A critical danger exists for employees who are annoyed with a rude supervisor: They ponder their negative treatment, which prompts them to disobey, a response that likely diminishes the chances that supervisors might change their behaviors. This detrimental process is particularly salient when employee–supervisor interactions are marked by unpleasant task-related fights. Originality/value This study unpacks an unexplored link between supervisor incivility and supervisor-directed insubordination by explicating the pertinent roles of two critical factors (rumination and task conflict) in this link.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".