MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2790472927 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v9n2p93

Employee Motivation: A Leadership Imperative

2018· article· en· W2790472927 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua D. Jensen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOrganizational Leadership and Management Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmployee motivationEmployee researchPublic relationsScale (ratio)Key (lock)PsychologyPhenomenonFocus (optics)Employee engagementMarketingBusinessPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Employee motivation is a topic that has been studied for nearly a century. Beginning with the Hawthorne Studies in the 1920s and continuing to the current day, researchers have explored the elusive phenomenon of employee motivation. Furthermore, researchers have attempted to understand how leaders can effectively lead their employees in a way that motivates them to reach their full potential. While employee motivation has been, and continues to be, the focus of much research among the social and behavioral sciences on an international scale, leaders today are in need of practical tools that can help them motivate employees more effectively. This paper provides a survey of some of the key research on employee motivation and highlights the important role that leaders play in motivating their employees to achieve high performance. Also included are some practical tools that leaders can implement to increase employee motivation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicOrganizational Leadership and Management StrategiesFrench-language works237,207