MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2730331072 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2017.13.62

Effect of Diversified Model of Organizational Politics on Diversified Emotional Intelligence

2017· article· en· W2730331072 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jamil Ahmad, Hafiz Muhammad Waqas Akhtar, Hifz ur Rahman, Rao Muhammad Imran, Noor Ul Ain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmotional intelligencePoliticsPromotion (chess)PsychologySocial psychologyDimension (graph theory)Sample (material)Political science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose behind the study is to explore the influence of organizational politics of bankers on the ability based emotional intelligence and their diversified interplay. The sample of 292 bankers was used for testing organizational politics’ effect on emotional intelligence as well as individual and collective effect of facets of organizational politics (general political behavior, going along to get ahead, and pay and promotions policies) on dimensions of emotional intelligence (self and others’ emotional appraisal, use and regulation of emotions). The results witnessed that organizational politics significantly affects emotional intelligence, whereas organizational politics’ dimensions significantly predict each emotional intelligence dimension collectively. It is also noted that general political behavior and going along to get ahead have a negative effect on the dimensions of emotional intelligence. But pay and promotion policies positively influences emotional intelligence dimensions. The study can be helpful for the managers, who can identify the patterns of political behaviors and the persons who use it by openly discussing it with the employees through training. Limitations and future suggestions are presented in later part.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score0.670

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207