Instigated Incivility, Guilt Expression, and Performance: Moderating Role of Religiosity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a theoretical grounding in conservation of resources theory, this study examines how instigated incivility may boost instigators' job performance, in a process that might be explained by the instigators' expressions of guilt and moderated by their religious faith. The hypotheses tests rely on multisource, three-wave data collected from employees and their supervisors in Pakistani organizations. The findings, generated with the Process macro, affirm that (1) an important reason that instigated incivility translates into enhanced in-role and extra-role job performance is the instigators' desire to express guilty feelings and (2) this mediating role is especially prominent among employees who hold strong religious beliefs. For management scholars, this study's focus on incivility perpetrators provides an important complement to traditional considerations of incivility victims. For practitioners, it reveals how employees' own uncivil behaviors, somewhat counterintuitively, lead to enhanced performance outcomes and how religious faith serves as a catalyst of this process.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".