The role of HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance
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
Taking the social exchange perspective, we examine the process (black box) linking human resource practices and organizational commitment and superior rating performance. Using procedural justice, organizational support and trust, as relational exchange mechanisms, we evaluate which such complex psychological states mediate the relationship between HRM practices and performance. On the basis of a sample of 1,219 employees from a Canadian hospital, our results indicate that HRM practices can stimulate greater in-role and extra-role performance if they are perceived as signs of support and procedural justice. Consequently, we find that that the sole implementation of HRM practices, however innovative they may be, does not suffice to improve behavioral performance. Our study thus contributes to a better understanding of the ‘black box’ phenomenon that links HRM practices to organizational performance indices. Because of the number of psychological states studied, our research enriches knowledge of the social exchange mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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