MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193877193 · doi:10.1108/jic-11-2020-0362

Team reflexivity, individual intellectual capital and employee innovative behavior: a multilevel moderated mediation

2021· article· en· W3193877193 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intellectual Capital · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityMediationOriginalityPsychologyIntellectual capitalExperiential learningModerated mediationValue (mathematics)Public relationsKnowledge managementSocial psychologySociologyPolitical sciencePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Based on experiential learning theory (ELT), this study explores the cross-level effect of team reflexivity on employee innovative behavior. The authors especially focus on the mediating effect of individual intellectual capital (IIC) and the moderating effect of empowering leadership on the relationship between the two constructs. Design/methodology/approach This study collects data from 76 work units, which include 362 employees and their direct supervisors. A cross-level moderated mediation model was tested by using multilevel path analysis. Findings The results show that team reflexivity significantly contributes to employee innovative behavior. IIC mediates the above relationship. Empowering leadership not only positively moderates the relationship between team reflexivity and IIC but also reinforces the linkage of team reflexivity → IIC → employee innovative behavior. Practical implications The study suggests that organizations should invest more in promoting team reflexivity and empowering leadership in the workplace. Furthermore, managers should make members aware of the importance of IIC for employee innovative behavior. They need to make efforts to enhance IIC via internal communication channels or open discussions, which facilitate IIC and employee innovative behavior. Originality/value This research tests the relationship between team reflexivity and employee innovative behavior and identifies IIC as a key mediator that links team reflexivity to employee innovative behavior. It also highlights the moderating role of empowering 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it