An interpersonal perspective to study workplace favoritism and employees’ motivation to hold multiple jobs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The reasons for employees’ multiple jobholding have often been explored from economic and aspirational standpoints, and the role of workplace conditions that may encourage employees’ multiple jobholding remains largely overlooked. We examine the linkage between workplace favoritism and employees’ multiple jobholding motivations. Utilizing the conservation of resources as our theoretical framework, we also explored the underlying role of job insecurity and psychological contract violation. Design/methodology/approach We collected data using qualitative and quantitative methods. To gauge multiple jobholding motivations, we collected data from employees in Indian organizations using both qualitative ( N = 44) and quantitative ( N = 180, N = 205, N = 251) methods. A mediation model was tested using two-wave data gathered from 251 employees working with varied organizations located in North India. Variance-based SmartPLS was used to test the hypothesized relationships. Findings A positive and significant association was found between workplace favoritism and employees’ multiple jobholding motivations. Job insecurity and psychological contract violation emerged as significant mediators in this process. Originality/value Through qualitative and quantitative studies, we developed and tested a measure of employees’ motivations to hold multiple jobs. The study uncovers the role of adverse workplace conditions in encouraging these motivations and sheds light on how workplace favoritism translates into employees’ holding multiple jobs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".