Getting Creative With Resources: How Resilience, Task Interdependence, and Emotion Sharing Mitigate the Damage of Employee Role Ambiguity
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
This article investigates how employees’ experience of role ambiguity might inhibit their creative behavior but also how this harmful effect might be buffered by employees’ access to relevant individual (resilience), job task (task interdependence), and relational (emotion sharing) resources. The uncertainty resulting from information deficiencies about job responsibilities diminishes in the presence of these resources, such that employees might be less likely to react to this resource-draining work condition by exhibiting a reluctance to develop change-invoking ideas for organizational improvement. Using survey data from employees in a large organization that operates in the renewable energy sector, this study shows that role ambiguity diminishes creative behavior, but this detrimental effect is subdued with higher levels of resilience, task interdependence, and emotion sharing. As this study shows, organizations that cannot avoid ambiguity in their employees’ work roles should adopt efforts to offset the associated challenge of thwarted creative behaviors with pertinent resources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it