Violated contracts, inadequate career support, but still forgiveness: Key organizational factors that determine championing behaviors
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
Abstract To establish how and when psychological contract violations steer employees away from championing behaviors, this study addresses the mediating role of beliefs about inadequate career support and the moderating role of forgiveness climates, as perceived by employees. Survey data from 208 employees of a retail organization, along with a simultaneous estimation of mediation and moderation effects (Process macro), reveal that a sense of organizational betrayal undermines efforts to mobilize support for innovative ideas, because employees critique employers for offering limited career support. Perceptions of an organizational climate that forgives mistakes mitigate this harmful process. For championing research, this study unpacks an unexplored link between psychological contract violations and championing efforts, influenced by career‐related adversity and organizational forgiveness. For practitioners, it pinpoints the danger that employees who feel betrayed might inadvertently make things more difficult, because they react with work‐related complacency. Organizations should create benevolent internal environments to diminish this danger.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
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