MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148924800 · doi:10.5539/jms.v2n1p43

Organizational Commitment and Corporate Ethical Values: Exploring the Nexus between Employees' Psychological Contract and Firms' Ethical Behaviour in the Nigerian Insurance Industry

2012· article· en· W2148924800 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Musa Obalola, Kunle Aduloju, Folake Olowokudejo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Sustainability · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive dissonancePsychological contractNexus (standard)Organizational commitmentEthical dilemmaEthical leadershipValue (mathematics)Public relationsOrganizational cultureBusinessEthical valuesDilemmaPsychologySocial psychologySociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commitment of employees to their organisations has been one of the central research themes in organisational study. Though, many predictors of organisational commitment abound in the literature, much is however not known on how ethical behaviour in the organisation affects employees’ commitment. Considering the nature of insurance services, and high potentials for ethical dilemma in the industry, this study contributes to organisational commitment literature by providing further understanding on the impact of corporate ethical values on organisational commitment in Nigeria. Underpinned by cognitive dissonance theory, the study proposes a significant relationship between the two constructs. While controlling for some demographic factors, corporate ethical values was hypothesized as a significant determinant of organisational commitment. With data from 415 managers, collected through Hunt’s et al (1989) Corporate Ethical Value and Hunt’s et al (1985) organisational commitment scales, the results of the multivariate analysis were presented, and discussed with managerial implications.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and SustainabilitySame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207