Creating facades of conformity in the face of job insecurity: A study of consequences and conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates creating facades of conformity (i.e., suppressing personal values and pretending to embrace organizational values) as a coping strategy associated with perceived job insecurity in workplace. In two survey‐based studies, we examined the conditions under which such a strategy is more likely, and the consequences of its use. The results show in Study 1 ( N = 404) and in Study 2 ( N = 622) that facades of conformity, although employed as an agentic response to protect one's status, is paradoxically associated with negative employee outcomes including increased intention to leave and reduced affective commitment. Furthermore, the results show that age attenuates the relationship between perceived job insecurity and facades of conformity, such that older workers are less likely than younger workers to engage in facades under higher job insecurity. Our research contributes to theory on job insecurity, authenticity, and lifespan development. Managerial implications are discussed. Practitioner points The current study found that employees who feel their job security threatened were more likely to suppress personal values and pretend to embrace organizational values, and such responses were linked to their intention to leave and reduced affective commitment. The results from this study highlight the importance of fostering organizational environments that encourage authenticity such that members are not compelled to suppress personal values and pretend to embrace organizational values in job‐insecure environments. The results also highlight how employees will enact their careers at different stages of their lives. In job‐insecure environments, older workers are more likely than younger workers to express divergent points of view.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".