Organizational Commitment and Rewards in Malaysia, with Comparison between University Graduates and Others
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between rewards and organizational commitment (OC) of 12,076 employees who work for 32 Japanese manufacturing companies in Malaysia. Hierarchical regression analysis revealed that all of three types of reward are important for OC, in the order of intrinsic, social and extrinsic rewards. These findings suggest that the antecedents of OC in Malaysia are different from those in the West or other lower income Asian countries such as China. The comparison between University graduates and others showed that extrinsic and intrinsic rewards had stronger while social rewards had weaker influence on OC in university graduates than in others. In detail: satisfaction with personnel evaluation and autonomy were more strongly correlated with OC in university graduates while co-worker support and role clarity were more significantly correlated with OC in others; fatigue was negatively correlated with OC in university graduates while positively correlated with OC in others; other rewards, i.e., satisfaction with other treatments, supervisor support and training, were equally correlated with OC in university graduates and others. Discussions and implications concerning human resource management of Japanese companies in Malaysia are offered.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".