MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042208152 · doi:10.1111/1467-8543.00264

What Kind of Voice Do Loyal Employees Use?

2003· article· en· W2042208152 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Andrew A. Luchak

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Industrial Relations · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFeelingLoyaltyPsychologyEmployee voiceSocial psychologyBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study helps clarify mixed support for Hirschman's exit–voice–loyalty framework by arguing that loyalty, or feelings of attachment to the organization, and voice are not one–dimensional constructs. Based on data gathered from a survey of employees working with a large Canadian utility organization, employees feeling attached through an affective, emotional bond are found less likely to use representative voice but more likely to use direct voice, while those attached for rational, calculated reasons are more likely to use representative voice. Employees feeling attached for either reason are found less likely to exit. Implications for theory, research, and policy are discussed.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Industrial RelationsSame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207