The Intricacies of Workplace Territoriality: An Exploratory Study on the Phenomenon of Desk Appropriation in Organizational Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research delves into the intricate phenomenon of desk appropriation within workplace settings, guided by Human Resource Management (HRM) principles. Employing a mixed-methods approach, the study combines qualitative and quantitative methodologies to comprehensively explore the prevalence, underlying dynamics, and impact of desk appropriation. Across diverse industries and organizational levels, instances of desk appropriation prove noteworthy, influenced significantly by power dynamics and office politics, involving both managerial perpetration and victimhood. The psychological repercussions on affected individuals manifest in heightened stress and diminished job satisfaction, emphasizing implications for employee well-being. The study underscores the adverse effects of desk appropriation on teamwork, collaboration, and overall organizational culture. Employee coping mechanisms, including seeking social support and workspace modifications, emerge alongside organizational responses featuring clear policies and prompt resolutions. Recommendations for HRM practices emphasize the development of precise workspace etiquette policies, targeted training programs, and robust organizational support mechanisms. Contributing practical insights to HRM, this research aims to guide organizations in fostering inclusive, collaborative, and supportive workplace environments. Acknowledging limitations and paving the way for future research, the findings aspire to inform HRM practitioners and organizational leaders, promoting workplaces that prioritize employee well-being, collaboration, and a positive organizational culture.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".