Employee Deviance as By-product of Psychological Contract: The Moderating Effects of Power Distance among Employees in Insurance Companies in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employees have expectations from their organizations; whether they are written, contractual, or not, these expectations have an equally employee outcome such as employee deviance. Indices indicate that employee deviance is on the increase especially in the organized private sector; thus, this study evaluated employee deviance as by-product of psychological contract and power distance among a sample of employees (289) from insurance organizations in Nigeria with an average age of 34.50 years and standard deviation of 3.50. The study sought to ascertain the relationship between psychological contract and employee deviance and whether perceptions of power distance moderated this relationship. Psychological contract inventory (PCI), Power distance scale adapted from CVSCALE Five-dimensional scale of individual cultural values and Workplace deviant behaviour scale were utilized for data collection. The result of data analysis indicated that the adjusted R2 for step 1 is .24 at F(42.06) p < .01. In the second model, the adjusted R2 is .26 and R change is .002. This R change was significant at F (33.76), df = 285 p < .01. The Beta coefficient for model 2 shows that psychological contract significantly and negatively predicted employee deviant behaviours at Beta value, thus, the first hypothesis was confirmed at β = -.68, p < .01. Similarly, power distance significantly and positively predicted employee deviant behaviour at β coefficient value of .34, p < .01, thus, the second hypothesis was also confirmed. Also, the third hypothesis where power distance moderated the relationship between psychological contract and employee deviant behaviour was confirmed at β =.27, p < .01. The study concludes that organizations whose interests do not account for the expectations of their employees are at risk of higher levels of employees’ deviance either as byproduct of psychological contract violations or as a retaliatory behaviour.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".