MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403609122 · doi:10.1080/09585192.2024.2417177

War vs pandemic—investigating the type of extreme context as a moderator of extreme-context perception effects on work alienation and its organisational outcomes

2024· article· en· W4403609122 on OpenAlexaff
Ali B. Mahmoud, William D. Reisel, Alexander Berman, Leonora Fuxman, Christopher Long, Farouk Abu Jdea, Dieu Hack‐Polay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Resource Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsCrandall University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlienationModerationContext (archaeology)PerceptionPandemicPsychologyWork (physics)Social psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceHistoryMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With many organisations operating in challenging circumstances such as military conflicts and pandemics, a growing body of research has investigated the effects of extreme-context perceptions on job attitudes and organisational outcomes. While prior investigations focused on specific extreme contexts like warzones or pandemics, research has yet to examine whether different extreme contexts would have different intensities regarding shaping job attitudes and organisational outcomes. This study takes a unique approach to address this gap in the existing literature by exploring whether the type of extreme context (war vs pandemic) moderates extreme-context-perception effects on work alienation and subsequent job attitudes and organisational outcomes. Specifically, this study investigates the consequences of differentiated extreme contexts by using 668 valid responses from two samples: Sample 1 (N = 449), collected via snowball sampling during the Syrian civil war (2016-2019), and Sample 2 (N = 219), recruited using systematic random sampling from the Middle East during COVID-19 in 2021. Employing t-tests, Sample 1 in the wartime crisis reported higher levels of extreme-context perception, yet not quite as much worsened job satisfaction, but they had lower levels of alienation and job insecurity than those in health-crisis contexts. Using PLS-SEM, we found extreme-context perception heightened alienation, leading to increased job insecurity, decreased job satisfaction, and lower organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) outcomes. Interestingly, some of these relationships were moderated by the extreme context type. Specifically, while no significant differences were found between the two contexts regarding the relationship between extreme context perception and alienation and between alienation and job insecurity, we found that extreme-context-driven alienation is more likely to damage job satisfaction and OCB in war zones than in pandemic contexts. These findings contribute to important matters of both theory and practice. They specifically expand existing theory by illustrating differentiated consequences of distinct types of extreme contexts to organisational and employee-related concerns. They also demonstrate the need to develop customised organisational strategies as well as policy responses to mitigate and/or capitalise on the effects of differentiated extreme contexts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Human Resource ManagementSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207