The Implementation of High Performance Work System in Public Organizations: Implication for Organizational Performance.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Abstract</p> <p>A principal concern express among organizational researchers is to understand why some organizations irrespective of size, location and sector outperform others. High performance work system (HPWS) offers an explanation for this phenomenon. The implementation of unique practices leads some organizations to outperform others and give organizations the competitive advantage over others. While it has been well established that HPWS practices affect organizational performance within a large and complex organizations, less have been empirically established if they also create benefit for public organizations and this has generated concerns among researchers in the field of HPWS. Following this argument, this study examines this theoretical gap with a survey data collected from employees in the public sector. Overall, three dimensions of HPWS were identified by the researchers and the level of awareness was assessed on a seven point Likert scale. We found that two out of the three dimensions of HPWS identified in this have a positive relationship with organizational performance.</p> <p>Keywords: HPWS, organizational performance, selective training and development, PMS, individual role.</p> <p> </p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".