What Am I Doing for (Their) a Living? Positive Impact and Innovative Behavior at Work: The Mediating Role of Needs Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent research, a growing body of empirical evidence, suggests that prosocial impact at work can play a significant role in enhancing creativity and innovativeness. Drawing from Self Determination Theory, we hypothesized that basic psychological needs and benevolence satisfaction could serve as a mediating factor in the relation between employees perceived social impact and innovative work behavior and creativity, thus illuminating the manner in which contentment of psychological needs fosters inventive proclivities within the organizational milieu. Results from a study in Greece and Canada (N=528) showed that both perceived social impact and prosocial motivation are positively associated with innovative work behavior and creativity while autonomy and competence satisfaction mediate the relation between perceived social impact and the work outcomes examined within this study. Moreover, prosocial motivation was found to moderate the relation between benevolence satisfaction and innovativeness. Findings extend prior research on the role of prosociality on creative behavior at work and provide supporting evidence for the organizations that encourage and support employees’ initiatives to make a positive difference in the lives of others.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".