Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35010759›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Creativity in the South Korean Workplace: Procedural Justice, Abusive Supervision, and Competence.

Woo-Sung Choi, Seung-Wan Kang, Suk Bong Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Woo-Sung ChoiSeoul School of Integrated Sciences & Technologies, 46 Ewhayeodae 2-gil, Fintower, Sinchon-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03767, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0032-2136
Seung-Wan KangCollege of Business, Gachon University, 1342 Seongnamdaero, Sujeong-gu, Seongnam 13120, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6170-1009
Suk Bong ChoiCollege of Global Business, Korea University, 2511 Sejong-ro, Sejong City 30019, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8927-3985

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Innovation is now a feature of daily life. In a rapidly changing market environment and amid fierce competition, organizations pursue survival and growth through innovation, and the key driver of innovation is the creativity of employees. Because the value of creativity has been emphasized, many organizations are looking for effective ways to encourage employees to be creative at work. From a resource perspective, creativity at work can be viewed as a high-intensity job demand, and organizations should encourage it by providing and managing employee resources. This study is an attempt to empirically investigate how competence and abusive supervision affect the relationship between procedural justice and creativity from the conservation of resources perspective. Findings from two-wave time-lagged survey data from 377 South Korean employees indicate that procedural justice increases creativity through the mediation of competence. Furthermore, abusive supervision has a negative moderating effect on the relationship between procedural justice and competence. The findings show that competence moderates the relationship between procedural justice and creativity and that the lower the level of abusive supervision, the greater the effect of procedural justice on competence and creativity.

Indexed as

Social JusticeWorkplaceCreativityRepublic of KoreaSurveys and Questionnairesabusive supervisioncompetenceconservation of resource theorycreativityprocedural justice

Identifiers

PMID35010759
PMCPMC8744591

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.