Linking proactive behavior and constructive deviance to affective commitment and turnover intention: the mediating role of idea championing
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
Abstract This paper explores how proactive behavior and constructive deviance relate to affective organizational commitment and turnover intention through idea championing. Based on a two-wave study ( N = 310), structural equation model analyses revealed that constructive deviance had an inhibitory effect and proactive behavior a facilitatory effect on idea championing. In turn, idea championing was related to increased affective commitment and reduced turnover intention. The analyses of indirect effects further indicated that proactive behavior and constructive deviance had opposite indirect effects on affective commitment and turnover intention. This research underlines the importance of acting proactively upstream rather than deviating from the norm to promote innovation and build employee loyalty to the organization. Finally, this study also indicates that proactive and constructive deviant behaviors are conceptually different and exert opposite effects despite their similar orientation toward innovation and change.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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