MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150927313 · doi:10.1111/joop.12046

Job scope, affective commitment, and turnover: The moderating role of growth need strength

2013· article· en· W2150927313 on OpenAlexaff
Mahmood Shafeie Zargar, Christian Vandenberghe, Catherine Marchand, Ahmed Khalil Ben Ayed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyScope (computer science)TurnoverOperationalizationSocial psychologyModerated mediationOrganizational commitmentJob attitudePersonalityMediationJob performanceSample (material)Job satisfactionManagementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a sample of business alumni from multiple organizations ( N = 230), we examined the relationships of job scope to actual turnover, measured 15 months later, as mediated by affective commitment and moderated by growth need strength (which was operationalized through learning goal orientation, need for achievement, and proactive personality as first‐order factors). Moderated mediation analyses (Edwards & Lambert, 2007, Psychol. Methods , 12, 1–22) revealed that: (1) job scope's relationship to commitment was stronger at high levels of growth need strength; (2) the indirect effect of job scope on turnover was stronger at high levels of growth need strength; and (3) growth need strength had a residual, positive relationship to turnover. We discuss the implications of these findings for our understanding of how motivation‐related individual difference variables combine with job characteristics and commitment in explaining turnover decisions. Practitioner points Organizations should provide challenging job characteristics to employees with high growth need as this may lead to increased affective commitment and lower turnover rates. For employees with weak growth needs, organizations may build climates for learning, achievement, and self‐initiative as this may create the conditions for the emergence of commitment and reduce turnover.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations35
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Organizational PsychologySame topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorFrench-language works237,207