The Increase of Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) Through Islamic Work Ethics, Affective Commitment, and Organizational Identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An employee who is willing to voluntarily help fellow co-workers to do work outside the assigned job description and the assistance provided is not included in the performance assessment, can be defined as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). Podsakoff et.al (2000) states that OCB can influence organizational effectiveness because it can help improve co-workers productivity, increase managerial productivity and streamline the use of organizational resources for productive purposes. This research was conducted to identify the effect of Islamic work ethics, affective commitment and organizational identity on OCB. The data were collected from 110 employees at the Muhammadiyah Islamic Hospital of Kendal and the Muhammadiyah Darul Istiqomah Hospital of Kendal. The data were later analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) using the Analysis of Moment Structure (AMOS 24) software. The result indicates that affective commitment and organizational identity have a significant effect on OCB while Islamic work ethics have no significant effect on OCB. The researcher hopes that this research can be developed in future research by adding other variables related to OCB that may have a greater influence on OCB.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".