Building Organizational Commitment through Cognitive and Relational Job Crafting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to investigate the influence of job crafting amongst knowledge workers on organizational commitment. While there has been much interest on job crafting in recent years, there has been little focus on how different types of job crafting impact on organizational commitment, and on job crafting in knowledge intensive contexts. To address this aim, we conducted a longitudinal qualitative case study in an software solutions development firm in Denmark. Findings from the study suggest that relational and cognitive job crafting in particular encourage greater affective, normative, and continuous commitment, which may ultimately have a positive influence on talent retention. However, it was also discovered that there is considerable overlap between the types of job crafting, with task job crafting appearing to be a precursor of relational and cognitive job crafting. The paper contributes to further development of the literature by demonstrating a link between job crafting and organizational commitment in a knowledge intensive context, and to managerial practice by offering a strategy in which organizations can encourage greater organizational commitment by providing knowledge workers opportunities to craft their jobs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".