Flex‐time as a moderator of the job stress‐work motivation relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose It has been known for some time that job stress has a wide‐ranging, negative impact on employees. It has also been known that providing employees with autonomy and/or control over their work environment reduces the deleterious consequences of job stress. The purpose of this study is to examine whether control in the form of flex‐time (i.e. allowing employees to create their own work schedules) moderates the impact of stress on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among Russian, Canadian, and Israeli Arab employees (n=933). Design/methodology/approach Archival data that was obtained from employees (n=933) residing in three different nations was analysed via hierarchical moderated multiple regression. Findings In relation to extrinsic motivation, a significant interaction was observed between job stress, flex‐time, and country of residence. Although flex‐time and country of residence were significant predictors of intrinsic motivation, no significant interactions were observed. Originality/value This is one of few papers to examine flex‐time from an international perspective. In terms of value, human resource managers are made aware that the impacts of flex‐time on employees' motivation depends, in part, on the nation in which they are employed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".