Impact of abusive supervision on deviant work behavior: The role of Islamic work ethic
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
Abstract In this article, we examined the relationship between abusive supervision and deviant workplace behavior and the moderating role of an Islamic Work Ethic. Three hundred and thirty‐six employees in different organizations (specializing in software development, medicine, law enforcement, telecommunication, pharmaceutics, and banking) across Pakistan completed our questionnaire. The results revealed that abusive supervision was positively related to deviant workplace behavior. Moreover, the moderation of an Islamic Work Ethic on the relationship between abusive supervision and deviant work behavior was confirmed. The study contributed in many ways. It expanded literature by revealing a weaker relationship between abusive supervision and deviant behavior when Islamic Work Ethic (IWE) was high. It also tested the conservation of resources theory by providing a plausible reasoning of the role of IWE in employee motivation. By integrating IWE as a resource in the workplace, practitioners would learn that the proper use of resources would produce satisfied workers who would not indulge in deviant workplace behaviors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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