The Effect of Internal and External Motivation on Organizational Trust: A Case Study on a Sport Organization in Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are two types of motivation, internal and external, differenetiated by the source of the motivation. For internal motivation, the job itself motivates the individual; for external motivation, the environment motivates that individual. Today, organizational trust is extremely important to increase organizational success as well as to create effectiveness and efficiency. Having a successful, effective, and efficient organization is greatly linked with trust between organization managers and employees. The purpose of this study was to investigate how the internal and external motivation of employees effects organizational trust levels. The study sample consisted of 164 employees working under the Youth Service and Sport Provincial Directorate of Bursa, Turkey. A survey was used to obtain data, which were analyzed with the SPSS 20 program. This study used the internal-external motivation and organizational trust scales. To measure the internal and external motivation levels of participants, a scale developed by Mottaz (1985) and a Turkish reliability-validity study conducted by Ersarı and Naktiyok (2012) were used. To measure organizational trust level, a scale developed by three different researchers (Whitener et al., 1998; Mayer et al., 1995; McAllister et al., 1995) and adapted to Turkish with a reliability and validity analysis by Tokgöz and Seymen (2013) was used. The independent t-test, ANOVA test, correlation and regression tests were used to analyze the data. Based on the correlation and regression analysis, both internal and external motivation had significant positive effects on organizational trust and its sub-dimensions. Accordingly, as the internal and external motivation of participants increased, organizational trust increased as well.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".