The Effect of Workplace Spirituality on Innovative Work Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".