Ignoring Leaders who Break Promises or Following God: How Depersonalization and Religious Faith Inform Employees’ Timely Work Efforts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the relationship between employees’ perceptions of psychological contract breaches and their failure to meet work‐related deadlines, with a particular focus on the mediating role of the depersonalization they assign to organizational authorities and the moderating role of their religious faith. Results based on multisource data, collected among employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations, show that an important factor that underpins the connection between beliefs about broken organizational promises and a diminished propensity to finish work on time is that employees depersonalize organizational leaders. This mediating effect is mitigated by employees’ religious faith. For organizations, this study thus identifies a key mechanism – exhibiting indifference to the people in charge – by which employees’ frustrations about resource‐depleting contract breaches may inadvertently escalate into ineffective time management, and it identifies some workers among whom this counterproductive dynamic is less likely, namely, employees who can draw from their religious faith.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".