MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143308696 · doi:10.1177/1059601112445804

When Self-Management and Surveillance Collide

2012· article· en· W2143308696 on OpenAlexaff
Jaclyn M. Jensen, Jana L. Raver

Bibliographic record

VenueGroup & Organization Management · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCounterproductive work behaviorOrganizational citizenship behaviorAutonomyPerceptionReactanceWork (physics)PsychologyControl (management)Compliance (psychology)Impression managementPublic relationsWork motivationOrganizational behaviorSocial psychologyHuman resource managementBusinessOrganizational commitmentKnowledge managementManagementPolitical scienceEconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite arguments for the benefits of self-management for enhancing employees’ motivation to work toward organizational goals, many managers fail to give their employees control and instead engage in surveillance to gain compliance. Drawing on personal control and reactance theories, the authors propose self-management would relate to increased discretionary contributions, that is, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), but when supervisory surveillance is also in place, OCB would be diminished and counterproductive work behavior (CWB) would increase. The authors further propose that these effects would be mediated by employees’ perceptions of autonomy and the degree to which they believe the organization trusts them. Two studies establish the beneficial effects of self-management on OCB and illustrate the detrimental effects for employees and organizations when self-management and surveillance collide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations73
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroup & Organization ManagementSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207