Promoting Autonomy to Reduce Employee Deviance: The Mediating Role of Identified Motivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The organizational environment is purported to have a profound impact on how employees behave at work. In particular, the extent to which the work environment can foster autonomy in employees has been shown to predict several positive outcomes for employees and organizations. This research explores the associations between employees’ experiences of autonomy at work and organizational deviance. We also investigate the mechanisms underlying this association and the possible role of identified motivation as a mediator of this relation. Three studies conducted in a variety of settings, countries, populations and assessment methods showed that employees who experience more autonomy at work tend to engage in lower levels of organizational deviance. Two studies also showed that this relation was mediated by identified motivation. Thus, employees’ experiences of autonomy at work seemed to foster higher levels of identified motivation towards work, which in turn predicted lower levels of organizational deviance. The present results may help guide managerial training and promote organizational cultures that are respectful of employee autonomy, potentially reducing the costs associated with organizational deviance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".