Do sick coworkers make us help others?: Investigating the critical roles of citizenship pressure and psychological detachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Although researchers have started to uncover the positive effects of presenteeism, research has yet to unearth the positive implications of coworker presenteeism. We draw from social information processing theory to hypothesize that coworker presenteeism has a positive indirect effect on organizational citizenship behaviors directed towards the organization (OCBOs) and other individuals (OCBIs) via citizenship pressure. Building on these hypotheses, we further theorize that the indirect effect of coworker presenteeism on OCBOs and OCBIs differ when employees are psychologically detached from their organization. Based on data collected using a time‐separated research design (n = 277 employees), the results reveal that coworker presenteeism has a positive indirect effect on both forms of OCBs via citizenship pressure. The results further demonstrate that the indirect effect of coworker presenteeism on OCBIs via citizenship pressure strengthens for employees who are psychologically detached from their organization. Importantly, this research shows that there are positive behavioral implications associated with coworker presenteeism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".