1,721,031 research outputs found

    I don’t care why you do it, just don’t! Reactions to negative and positive organizational deviance partly depend on the desire for tightness of prevention-focused employees

    Full text link
    Tightness–Looseness (T-L) at the individual level has only begun to receive attention from researchers. Specifically in the organizational context, this is a so far unexplored construct. The study offers first insights into the mechanisms that can trigger individuals’ desire for tightness and the consequences it can have on organizational behaviors. We, therefore, investigated the mediating role of the desire for tightness on the relationship between work regulatory prevention focus and emotional responses to both negative and positive (i.e., pro-social) deviant organizational behaviors. We tested our prediction through a mediational model with a sample of 788 Italian employees (58.6% females, Mage = 35.09). Our findings supported the hypothesized model showing that regardless of the motivation underpinning the norm-violating behavior, employees with a prevention focus are more desirous of tightness and exhibit hostile reactions toward deviance. Given its importance in understanding employees’ behaviors and intentions, which inevitably reflect on the organization’s functionality, the impact of the T-L individual-level dimension in organizations is undoubtedly worthy of deeper investigation

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore