Examining the implications of a masculinity contest culture on well-being and retention in a military context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Unhealthy organizational culture can negatively impact military members' well-being and retention. Masculinity contest cultures (MCCs) - zero-sum competitions with rules defined by traditional masculine norms - have been linked to harassment, discrimination, and abuse of power. Conversely, transformational leadership fosters positive social interactions contributing to healthy organizational culture. This study examined the moderating effect of transformational leadership on the relationships between an MCC and three outcomes: psychological health, microaggressions, and turnover intentions. Methods: . Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) Regular Force members compose the sample (n = 4,483). Regressions, including two- and three-way interactions and their associated simple slopes, were conducted for the overall sample, controlling for rank and members identifying as part of a minority group (ethnic or racial minority groups, and/or 2SLGBTQIA+). The interaction effects of gender were also examined. Results: MCC was positively related to all three outcomes, with the effects on psychological distress and microaggressions diminishing with increasing levels of transformational leadership. Considering the role of gender, the interaction effects on psychological distress were only significant for men. Discussion: The findings highlight the negative outcomes of an MCC. Encouragingly, the results suggest that one solution may lie in developing transformational leaders who can influence the behaviour of others through their actions. Findings can help inform CAF and Department of National Defence strategies and policies that foster inclusivity and a healthy organizational culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".