Coping and laughing in the face of broken promises: implications for creative behavior
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to consider how employees’ perceptions of psychological contract breach, due to their sense that their organization has not kept its promises, might diminish their creative behavior. Yet access to two critical personal resources – emotion regulation and humor skills – might buffer this negative relationship. Design/methodology/approach Survey data were collected from employees in a large organization in the automobile sector. Findings Employees’ beliefs that their employer has not come through on its promises diminishes their engagement in creative activities. The effect is weaker among employees who can more easily control their emotions and who use humor in difficult situations. Practical implications For organizations, the results show that the frustrations that come with a sense of broken promises can be contained more easily to the extent that their employee bases can rely on pertinent personal resources. Originality/value This investigation provides a more comprehensive understanding of when perceived contract breach steers employees away from productive work activities, in the form of creativity. This damaging effect is less prominent when employees possess skills that enable them to control negative emotions or can use humor to cope with workplace adversity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it