Understanding the Domain of Counterproductive Work Behavior in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current conceptualizations of employee job performance in the Western literature include task performance, organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB), and counterproductive work behaviour (CWB). Limited research has investigated the crosscultural generalizability of these categories or their content. Convergence and divergence theorists present competing perspectives on the cross-cultural applicability of Western management practices. The growing role of China in the world economy makes this culture an important one to consider. The present study contributes to job performance research in two important ways. First, Study 1 investigates whether CWB in China is described by similar or different behaviours as in the Western literature. Second, Study 2 examines the importance that Chinese managers place on task performance, OCB, and CWB. Findings indicate that Chinese managers are similar to North American managers in the content of CWB. Furthermore, Chinese managers value all three groups of behaviours when rating overall performance, placing greater emphasis on task performance and less emphasis on CWB than North American managers. The results suggest that cross-cultural research on job performance needs to take both convergence and divergence perspectives into account.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".