The development of blended friendship in high leader-member exchange relationships: Mechanisms and consequences of a relational shift
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confusion persists about the overlap between high-quality leader-member exchange (LMX) relationships and personal friendships between a leader and a subordinate. How these notions differ, shift from one to the other, and what their consequences are remain unclear. This paper proposes a framework that examines the fundamental differences between high LMX relationships and friendships. We argue that when high LMX relationships shift toward friendships, they in fact shift toward blended friendships, where the leader and the subordinate concomitantly enact two distinct roles, worker and friend. These blended friendships are qualitatively different from high LMX and from friendships. We detail the process by which blended friendship develops in the context of high LMX relationships and identify the key variables and mechanisms that drive the emergence of such blended friendships. We then examine how subordinates’ well-being, job engagement, performance, and turnover may simultaneously benefit and suffer from their involvement in a blended friendship.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it