Resilient employees are creative employees, when the workplace forces them to be
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
With a basis in conservation of resources theory, this article considers the connection between employees' resilience and disruptive creative behaviour—conceptualized herein as the extent to which they generate radically new ideas for organizational improvement—as well as how this connection might be invigorated by resource‐draining work conditions that stem from excessive workloads and unfavourable decision‐making processes. Data collected through a survey administered to employees in an organization that operates in the distribution sector reveal that employees' resilience levels spur their disruptive creative behaviour, and this process is more prominent among employees who believe they have insufficient time to complete their work tasks (i.e., suffer from high work overload) and operate in organizational climates marked by high rigidity or dysfunctional politics. The findings accordingly inform organizational practitioners that the allocation of employees' personal resource bases to disruptive creative behaviours might be particularly useful among employees who face substantial adversity in their organizational functioning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it