Employee’s Perception on Workplace Gossip in the South African Public Sectors: The Implication on Job Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gossip is pervasive in any working environment. Sketching upon the existing and scant body of research knowledge surrounding the subject of gossip, the current qualitative study undertaken critically assessed how the employees protrude themselves after being victims of gossip in a workplace. This study examined the influence of workplace gossip on the job performance of employees within selected municipalities in South Africa. The researcher intended to establish the likeliest behaviour of municipality employees towards their job performance in the event of encountering workplace gossip. Interviews with twenty-five office workers were conducted and data documented and analyzed. The heuristic of this study was to equip managers or those in practice with an in-depth understanding about office gossip, by providing a new dimension about the influence workplace gossip on job performance and employees self-efficacy. Moreover, the study necessitated an in-depth understanding of several reactions that emanates from employees behavioral patterns when affected by office gossip. The study uncovered a substantial outcome, such that if gossip is work-related, rather than non-work-related, employees are more likely to improve their performance. However, unremittingly exposure to gossip can have a negative impact on employee’s self-efficacy.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".