Explaining Employee Creativity: The Roles of Knowledge-sharing Efforts and Organizational Context
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 study contributes to creativity research by investigating the link between employees’ knowledge-sharing efforts and creativity and how this link is moderated by two aspects of relationship quality (informality and emotional openness) and by the belief that organizational decision making is marked by destructive political maneuvers. It theorizes that the usefulness of knowledge-sharing efforts for stimulating creativity is higher when employees maintain informal relationships with their colleagues and feel comfortable in expressing a diverse range of emotions with them. In addition, extensive knowledge-sharing efforts are less likely to enhance creativity when employees believe that organizational decision making is guided by destructive political games. Finally, the harmful effect of perceived organizational politics on the knowledge-sharing efforts-creativity relationship is mitigated when employees can rely on high levels of relationship quality. The results provide empirical support for these predictions, informing organizations regarding the circumstances in which the application of employees’ knowledge to the generation of novel solutions to problem situations is most effective.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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