How and When Can Employees with Status Motivation Attain Their Status in a Team? The Roles of Ingratiation, OCBI, and Procedural Justice Climate
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
Despite research having identified two major routes to status: dominance and competence, both routes seem inadequate to capture the “whole picture” of how people get ahead in organizations. Building on social exchange theory and social status literature, we identify two novel paths and their important boundary conditions by which employees with status motivation can achieve status. Specifically, we propose that employees with status motivation obtain status (operationalized as other-perceived status and promotability) by engaging in ingratiation toward their supervisors and organizational citizenship behavior directed toward individuals. In addition, these relationships are weakened in teams where the procedural justice climate is high. Results from four studies conducted in China and the United States, which consist of three experiments (Study 1: N = 240; Study 2: N = 180; Study 4: N = 309) and one field study of 427 employees from 74 teams (Study 3), provide support for most of the propositions we proposed. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
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