An Empirical Investigation of the Employee Work Passion Appraisal Model Using Self-Determination Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Problem Employee work passion theory offers an appraisal-based approach that explains how work passion is formulated in individuals. Self-determination theory postulates that the satisfaction of three basic psychological human needs (competence, relatedness, and autonomy) is essential for individuals to flourish and thrive at work. The role of basic psychological need satisfaction in the employee work passion appraisal process is yet to be examined. The Solution We investigated the relations between employees’ cognitive appraisals of their work environment characteristics (work cognitions), their basic psychological need satisfaction, and their work intentions. Our study provided empirical evidence showing that employees’ cognitive appraisals of work characteristics such as job autonomy, task variety, meaningful work, and performance expectations were positively related to basic psychological need satisfaction, which, in turn, positively impacted their work intentions, thus indicating the subjective experience of work passion. The Stakeholders Results suggest that organizational leaders, supervisors, and human resource development (HRD) practitioners could develop interventions that promote specific workplace characteristics and are aimed at contributing to the fulfillment of employees’ basic psychological needs. In so doing, employees and stakeholders could benefit from the individual and organizational outcomes that flow from employees experiencing greater work passion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".