MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983115888 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v12n12p29

The Effect of Workplace Spirituality on Innovative Work Behavior

2019· article· en· W2983115888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Vimansha R. Ranasinghe, Samantha Samarasinghe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWorkplace Spirituality and Leadership
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorkplace spiritualityCreativitySpiritualityAbsenteeismPsychologyWork (physics)Work behaviorSocial psychologyApplied psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Workplace spirituality is a novel concept and it has been identified as a unique way to improve organizational performance. On the other hand, many organizations are experiencing undesirable consequences of lack of workplace spirituality, such as employee stress, turnover, absenteeism, and lack of employee creativity. Hence, organizations are now focusing on developing workplace spirituality in the workplaces as it offers many advantages to organizations. Despite the growing interest on workplace spirituality, there is still a dearth of research on the topic of workplace spirituality. Literature suggests that employee innovative work behavior directly leads to enhance organizational performance and workplace spirituality leads to increase innovativeness and creativity of employees. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to fill the gap in literature, to a certain extent by proposing a conceptual model to examine the effect of workplace spirituality on employee innovative work behavior. Thus, it proposed that there is a positive effect of workplace spirituality on employee innovative work behavior. Consequently, intrinsic motivation from componential theory of creativity was integrated to identify the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation on the effect of workplace spirituality on innovative work behavior.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score0.762

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.348 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicWorkplace Spirituality and LeadershipFrench-language works237,207