Employee flourishing and moral obligation in extreme conditions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We extend the extant call for a flourishing perspective by examining dynamic processes involving moral obligations of organizations, work meaningfulness, organizational responsiveness, and enabling conditions and their effects on employee flourishing in three studies from an emerging country. Through a mixed-study design, we qualitatively explore (Study 1: N = 146), perceptions of employees about the moral obligations, enabling conditions, and responsiveness of their organizations during an extreme condition. We then conduct (in Study 2) an experiment with employees ( N = 63) from the Kumasi metropolis in Ghana. The results of a 2 (high and low moral obligation) × 2 (facilitative and inhibitive enabling conditions) between-subjects design show that employees in high moral obligation organizations with facilitative enabling conditions reported perceptions of better flourishing than those in the other conditions. In Study 3, cross-sectional ( N = 112), we examine the mechanism and dynamics by which moral obligation influences employee flourishing. Study 4, a replication ( N = 81), shows a pattern similar to that of Study 2 in the Accra metropolis in Ghana. Consistent with the human flourishing theory, we discuss implications for future research.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it