How tyrannical leadership relates to workplace bullying and turnover intention over time: The role of coworker support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In light of the deleterious consequences associated with workplace bullying, it is important to identify the work-related factors that can contribute to the presence of bullying behaviors over time. Up to now, most research on the topic has investigated job characteristics (presence of job demands, absence of job resources) as contributing factors of workplace bullying. Given the key role leadership plays in shaping employees' work environment, this study aims to better understand how harmful forms of leadership relate to bullying behaviors over time and, subsequently, to employee functioning. METHODS: More specifically, this longitudinal study (two data collections over a 3-month period) conducted among a sample of Canadian employees (T1 n = 600, T2 n = 422) assesses the temporal relationship between tyrannical leadership, exposure to bullying behaviors, and turnover intention, as well as the moderating role of perceived coworker support in the relationship between tyrannical leadership and bullying behaviors. RESULTS: Results from cross-lagged analyses show that, controlling for baseline effects, T1 tyrannical leadership positively predicts T2 exposure to bullying behaviors and that T1 bullying behaviors positively predict T2 turnover intention. T1 coworker support did not significantly buffer the relationship between T1 tyrannical leadership and T2 exposure to bullying behaviors, although it did significantly predict, negatively so, T2 turnover intention. CONCLUSION: The present study provides valuable insight into the social contextual determinants of bullying behaviors and highlights the destructive nature of tyrannical leadership. Furthermore, this study illustrates the importance of fostering supportive behaviors between colleagues, as this important social resource can play a key role in reducing turnover intention over time.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".