How and when team reflexivity influences employee innovative behavior
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 Based on affective events theory, this study explores the cross-level effect of team reflexivity on employee innovative behaviors. Specifically, the authors examine the mediating effects of affective and normative commitment on this relationship, as well as the moderating effects of benevolent leadership. Design/methodology/approach The authors surveyed 341 employees and their direct supervisors in 74 work units and utilized multilevel path analysis to test a model of cross-level moderated mediation. Findings The study analysis results suggest that team reflexivity significantly contributes to employee innovative behavior. Both affective commitment and normative commitment mediate this relationship. Benevolent leadership not only enhances the relationship between team reflexivity and affective/normative commitment, but also reinforces the linkage of team reflexivity→affective commitment→employee innovative behavior. Practical implications The current study suggests that organizations should invest more in promoting team reflexivity and benevolent leadership in workplace. Furthermore, managers need to develop appropriate employees training programs and pay more attention to employees' work and personal lives. They need to make efforts to enhance employees' affective and normative commitment, thereby facilitating their innovative behavior. Originality/value This research identifies affective commitment and normative commitment as key mediators that link team reflexivity to employee innovative behavior and reveals the moderating role of benevolent leadership in the process.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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