The role of supervisory behavior, job satisfaction and organizational commitment on employee turnover
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
Abstract Few studies have presented structural turnover models including both job satisfaction and organizational commitment measures. Recent research suggests that perceived supervisor leadership may contribute to employee well-being, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. This study proposes a structural turnover intention model including supervisory behavior (person-oriented and task-oriented dimensions), job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Furthermore, the study proposes to test whether this model fits in both small- and medium-sized enterprises and in large enterprises. The sample included 763 employees from different types of organizations who have completed a measure of their perception of their supervisor’s behavior and self-administrated measures of job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intention. Results show that person-oriented leadership behavior affects turnover intentions through job satisfaction and organizational commitment more than task-oriented leadership behavior. Only organizational commitment had a direct effect in explaining turnover intention. Finally, results indicate that the model is applicable both in small- and medium-sized enterprises and large enterprises.
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) | 0.000 | 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