Perceived organizational injustice and counterproductive work behaviours: mediated by organizational identification, moderated by discretionary human resource practices
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 This research unpacks the relationship between employees' perceptions of organizational injustice and their counterproductive work behaviour, by detailing a mediating role of organizational identification and a moderating role of discretionary human resource (HR) practices. Design/methodology/approach The hypotheses were tested with a sample of employees in Pakistan, collected over three, time-lagged waves. Findings An important reason that beliefs about unfair organizational treatment lead to enhanced counterproductive work behaviour is that employees identify less strongly with their employing organization. This mediating role of organizational identification is less salient, however, to the extent that employees can draw from high-quality, discretionary HR practices that promote their professional development and growth. Practical implications For management practitioners, this study pinpoints a key mechanism – the extent to which employees personally identify with their employer – by which beliefs about organizational favouritism can escalate into purposeful efforts to inflict harm on the organization and its members. It also reveals how this risk can be subdued by discretionary practices that actively support employees' careers. Originality/value This study adds to previous research by detailing why and when employees' frustrations about favouritism-based organizational decision making may backfire and elicit deviant responses that likely compromise their own organizational standing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.006 | 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