Probing into commitment's nonlinear relationships to work outcomes
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the possibility of curvilinear patterns of relationships between workplace affective commitment and in‐role performance, organizational citizenship behaviors and burnout. As most commitment theories assume strictly linear relations with these outcomes, demonstrating that these positive associations do not hold above some ceiling point in the commitment continuum is potentially important for research and practice. Design/methodology/approach The possibility of nonlinear relations was examined in a sample of 273 hospital employees. Findings The results yielded strong support for the authors' hypotheses. Indeed, most of the relations observed (ten of 15) between affective commitment foci and work outcomes were curvilinear, revealing a ceiling to the positive association between commitment and outcomes. Although these results vary in strength across work outcomes and commitment targets, they reveal that affective commitment has negative associations with employee productivity and psychological health at extreme levels. Originality/value Methodologically, these results illustrate the need to systematically explore the true nature of relations among constructs, even in areas where it is assumed to be well known. Practically, these results suggest that, ultimately, moderate levels of commitment may be more beneficial than extremely high levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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