Predicting Counterproductive Work Behaviors: Examining the Role of Spiritual Intelligence and Personality Traits in Public and Private Sector Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterproductive work behaviors are intentional and harmful behaviors directed either towards the organization or towards its people. This study attempts to examine the role of two antecedent variables, spiritual intelligence (SQ), and personality based on the Big Five Personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness) in predicting the occurrence of counterproductive work behaviors. Two dimensions of counterproductive work behaviors: rating and self-indulgence were used in this study based on the tool developed by Jain & Singh (2020). A sample of 351 employees working in both public (170) and private (181) sector organizations in India was taken for the purpose of the study. Mean, correlational analysis and multiple hierarchical regressions were carried out to test the hypotheses. Significant results were found for both personality and spiritual intelligence (SQ) in predicting counterproductive work behaviors across both public and private sector organizations. The two antecedent variables significantly improved the model's predictive power, for both public and private sector organizations, though to a lesser extent in the private sector. No difference was found based on gender.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".