How human resource managers can prevent perceived pandemic threats from escalating into diminished change-oriented voluntarism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose For human resource (HR) managers, the harmful outcomes of employees’ ruminations about external crises, such as a pandemic, represent important, timely concerns. This research postulates that employees’ perceptions of pandemic threats might diminish the extent to which they engage in change-oriented voluntarism at work. This negative connection may be attenuated by employees’ access to two personal (work-related self-efficacy and organization-based self-esteem) and two relational (goal congruence and interpersonal harmony) resources. Design/methodology/approach The theoretical predictions are tested with survey data collected among employees who work in a banking organization in Portugal. Findings Persistent negative thoughts about a pandemic undermine discretionary efforts to alter and enhance the organizational status quo, but this detrimental effect is mitigated when employees (1) feel confident about their work-related abilities, (2) have a positive self-image about their organizational functioning, (3) share a common mindset with coworkers with respect to work goals and (4) maintain harmonious relationships with coworkers. Practical implications This study pinpoints several ways HR managers can reduce the danger that employees’ worries about life-threatening crises may lead to complacent responses that, somewhat paradoxically, might undermine their ability to alleviate the suffered hardships. Originality/value The findings contribute to research on the impact of external crisis situations on organizations by providing an explanation of why employees may avoid productive, disruptive work activities, contingent on their access to complementary resources.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".