Employee/Management Sabotage Effects on Organizational Output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines how employee sabotage affects organizational output in First Bank Plc, Calabar. The purpose was to identify the causes of employee sabotage, to examine how employee sabotage destroys the image and reputation of the organization, to examine how employee insubordination thwart the achievement of team work accomplishment and organizational effectiveness, to examine how employee refusal to produce product/service affect organizational output and to determine how employee sabotage reduce the security strength of the organization. The study employed survey design and used questionnaire to gather data from sampled respondents. Data was analyzed using simple percentage method. Based on the findings, it was revealed that sabotage at workplace by employee can damage the property, image and reputation of an organization. It was also revealed that employee insubordination thwart the achievement of team work accomplishment and organizational effectiveness. It was equally shown that employee sabotage reduces the security strength of the organization, thus expose the organization to competitive thread and that sabotage by employee leads to waste of resources in the organization, thus low organizational output. It was thus recommended that organizations should do a thorough background checks to know the type of employee that has been hired. Also, organizations should reinforce codes of conduct which will add weight to disciplinary response (court claim) to regulate employees’ behaviours if the employee abuses the rules.
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) | 0.001 | 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 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".