Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant Behavior upon Individual Employees
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
This article provides a review of the literature addressing the impact of coworkers’ deviant, dysfunctional, or counterproductive behaviors upon individual employees. We provide a framework for the collection of findings on this issue, revealing that coworker deviant behavior negatively impacts individual employees’ attitudes, affect, and actions through three routes: (a) direct impact, whereby an employee is the target of coworkers’ deviant behaviors; (b) vicarious impact, whereby an employee is impacted by witnessing or learning of coworkers’ deviant behaviors; and (c) ambient impact, whereby an employee is impacted by working in an environment characterized by collective coworker deviant behavior. In our discussion of these routes of influence, we outline the relevant empirical findings for and theoretical perspectives of each, as well as the moderators of these effects. We conclude our review by identifying recommended future research directions based upon our critical assessment of this literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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