MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524321106 · doi:10.1108/jmd-03-2014-0025

The influence of job characteristics on IT and non-IT job professional’s turnover intentions

2015· article· en· W1524321106 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob attitudeJob satisfactionPsychologyJob designJob performanceJob analysisPersonnel psychologyTurnoverApplied psychologyTransformational leadershipSocial psychologyContextual performanceJob rotationTransactional leadershipManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – Information technology (IT) professionals and their intentions to leave an organization have been studied by researchers; however, these studies do not compare the turnover intentions of IT professionals with non-IT professionals from the same institution. The purpose of this paper is to examine how IT and non-IT job professionals relate to motivational and social job characteristics and their impact on job satisfaction, job performance and turnover intentions. Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from IT-shared services employees through a survey and quantitative analyses were performed. Findings – Among the motivational job characteristics, IT professionals experienced greater task significance than the non-IT job holders. With social job characteristics, IT professionals had greater outside interaction than the non-IT professionals. However, the non-IT professionals had greater intentions to leave the IT organization than the IT professionals. Additionally, the study examined the differences of the job characteristics and job outcomes among transactional, transformational, and professional advisory work groups. The professionals and advisory group differed from the other groups in terms of feedback from the job, job satisfaction, and turnover intentions. Research limitations/implications – The findings are based on a small sample. However, it highlights some unique differences in how IT and non-IT job occupants perceive job characteristics and job outcomes. Originality/value – This study compares job characteristics and job outcomes of IT and non-IT job occupations in the same IT work environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it