MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784257498 · doi:10.1504/ijwoe.2017.10010196

Compromising innovative behaviour with work shame

2017· article· en· W2784257498 on OpenAlexaff
Angus Duff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Work Organisation and Emotion · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShamePsychologyCompromiseSocial psychologyPath analysis (statistics)Work (physics)Affect (linguistics)Mechanism (biology)Work engagementApplied psychologySociologyEngineeringEpistemologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the consideration of negative affect as an influence of innovative behaviour has yielded conflicting results in the organisational science literature, the current study sought to consider the influence of the discrete emotion of shame on innovative behaviour. Research outside of the domain of organisations suggests that shame enacts withdrawal behaviour, the negative form of engagement. Based in Kahn's (1990) suggestion that engagement is comprised of psychological availability, psychological safety and psychological meaningfulness, this study aimed to investigate work shame as a compromise to innovative behaviour, while considering the pathways acting as the mediating mechanism. Employees and managers from two organisations in different industries were surveyed. Through the use of path analysis, findings suggest that work shame exerts an indirect effect on innovative behaviour through psychological availability. Implications for both emotions and innovative behaviour research are considered.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Work Organisation and EmotionSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207