A Self‐Determination Approach to Understanding Individual Values as an Interaction Condition on Employees' Innovative Work Behavior in the High‐Tech Industry
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
Abstract Drawing on self‐determination theory (SDT; E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan, 1985, 2000) and using corporate samples ( N = 284; 63% Male; Mean Age = 34, SD = 6.09) from high‐tech firms in China, this empirical study explored the path model from satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, through autonomous motivation to employees' innovative work behavior (“IWB”; J. De Jong & D. Den Hartog, 2010). It also simultaneously examined the interactions between autonomous work motivation and individual values (collectivism, H.C. Triandis (1995); uncertainty avoidance, R. J. House, P. J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P. W. Dorfman, & V. Gupta (2004); and power distance, J. Farh, R.D. Hackett, & J. Liang (2007)) in the conditioned path model. The regression results obtained from conditional PROCESS analysis (A.F. Hayes, 2013, 2018) suggest that basic psychological needs satisfaction is positively related to employees' IWB via autonomous motivation, but that these indirect effects were weaker when employees' power distance value orientation was high. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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