When are employees idea champions? When they achieve progress at, find meaning in, and identify with work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Drawing from conservation of resources (COR) theory, this study investigates the relationship between employees' perceived career progress and their championing behavior and particularly how this relationship might be invigorated by two critical personal resources at the job (work meaningfulness) and employer (organizational identification) levels. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative data were collected from a survey administered to 245 employees in an organization that operates in the oil industry. Findings Beliefs about organizational support for career development are more likely to stimulate idea championing when employees find their job activities meaningful and strongly identify with the successes and failures of their employing organization. Practical implications This study offers organizations deeper insights into the personal circumstances in which positive career-related energy is more likely to be directed toward the active mobilization of support for novel ideas. Originality/value As a contribution to extant championing research, this research details how employees' perceived career progress spurs their relentless efforts to push novel ideas, based on their access to complementary personal resources.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".