The Use of Dominance Analysis to Identify Key Factors in Salespeople’s Affective Commitment Toward the Sales Manager and Organizational Commitment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selling in the current business environment requires dedication from various members of the organization. It is important for managers and researchers to identify key factors contributing to salesperson commitment within the organization and to the organization in order to achieve sales objectives. The purpose of this study is to identify the relative importance of variables influencing salesperson affective commitment to their sales manager and the commitment to the organization. Using social exchange theory and resource exchange theory, salesperson interaction with their manager is expected to be exchanged for commitment to that manager. On an organizational level, salesperson satisfaction with the organization is expected to be exchanged for commitment to the organization. Dominance is calculated for each of the independent variables examining affective commitment to the manager (trust, integrity, consideration) and organizational commitment (job satisfaction, promotion opportunity, needs fulfillment). Dominance analysis results show relative importance for perceived trustworthiness of the manager on salesperson commitment to the manager and promotion opportunity on salesperson commitment to the organization.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".