If the organization is a mess, do employees explain or exploit the situation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study investigates the connection between employees' dissatisfaction with the organizational status quo and their job performance, with a particular focus on the mediating role of their problem-focused voice behavior – through which they pinpoint possible causes of organizational problem situations – and the moderating role of their Machiavellianism. Design/methodology/approach Three-wave survey data were collected from employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations. Findings An important reason that employees' beliefs about organizational underperformance spur their own performance, as rated by supervisors, is that they spend significant energy expressing their concerns about shortcomings. The mediating role of such constructive voice behaviors is mitigated though, to the extent that employees have stronger Machiavellian tendencies. Practical implications For human resource managers, the findings reveal problem-focused voice as a key mechanism by which employees' negative perceptions about how well their organization fares can be channeled into higher job performance. They also elucidate how this process is less likely among employees who are self-centered and less concerned about their organization' well-being, such that they hold back pertinent information about organizational failures from others. Originality/value The study pinpoints problem-focused voice as an unexplored behavioral response by which employees' beliefs about organizational underperformance can enhance their job performance. It also details how the tendency of Machiavellian employees to stay away from such voice activities may backfire in the form of lower performance evaluations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".