How Employees’ Loyalty Programs Impact Organizational Performance within Jordanian Banks?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at examining the factors that influence and impact employees’ performance levels within Jordanian Banks. This study is based on quantitative research to test the research hypotheses and reveal the important factors that impact loyalty programs. A convenient sample of 377 employees was selected to represent the population which includes all employees working in the banking sector in Jordan. Based on previous studies and literature, a framework was developed to test the loyalty factors against organization performance. Loyalty factors involve employees’ satisfaction, financial rewards, motivation, performance appraisal, employees’ training and development, employees’ empowerment, internal communication, and work environment. Organizational performance indicators include sales, market share, profit, demand, decision making efficiency, and customers’ satisfaction level. Results of the study revealed that only six factors have significant relationships between loyalty levels and employees' performance. These include financial rewards, employees’ satisfaction, motivation, performance appraisal, internal communication, and employees’ training and development. Financial rewards that involve salaries, bonuses, and commission are the most important factor.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".