A Lack of Clarity, a Lack of OCB: The Detrimental Effects of Role Ambiguity, Through Procedural Injustice, and the Mitigating Roles of Relational Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If employees lack information about their job responsibilities, do they halt their voluntary work efforts, and if so, why and when? To answer these questions, this study attempts to unpack the relationship between employees’ role ambiguity and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and proposes both a mediating role of procedural injustice and a moderating role of relational resources (i.e. social interaction and goodwill trust). Survey data collected from employees who work for a services organization in Mozambique indicate that a critical reason that unclear role descriptions diminish extra-role work activities is that employees criticize their organization for maintaining unfair decision-making processes. The informality and trustworthiness of their peer relationships mitigate this detrimental effect. For employees who feel stressed by insufficient information about job responsibilities, this study indicates a risk that their organizational standing might become compromised because they respond by refraining from work-related voluntarism. Organizations need to encourage high-quality interpersonal exchanges to help reduce this risk.
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 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".