Academic Staffs’ Level of Organizational Commitment in Higher Educational Setting: The Case of Haramaya University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Employees’ organizational commitment is considered as a crucial issue in higher education setting for realizing institutional vision, attaining its goals, and uplifting employees’ motivation to achieve better work performance. This subject has, therefore, been studied so as to draw attention to enhance the effectiveness of Ethiopian higher education institutions with particular reference to Haramaya University. Thus, the main objective of this study was to assess academic staffs’ level of organizational commitment. In addition, the study assessed whether there exist a significant difference in academic staffs’ level of organizational commitment in terms of their gender and level of education. A cross-sectional research design was employed in the study. Primary and secondary data sources were used. A commitment scale questionnaire was used to collect data from 275 participants who were selected using stratified random sampling technique as well as further information about the study were also collected using focus group discussion and document review. The quantitative data were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics; the qualitative data were analyzed using content and narration methods of data analysis. The study revealed that academic staffs of the university have moderate level of organizational commitment. With this level of organizational commitment, it is less likely to attain both individual work performance objectives and organizational missions and vision of the university. In addition, there were relative implications of turnover, turnover intention, absenteeism, and demotivation among academic staffs. The study further revealed that although there is no significant difference in level of commitment with reference to gender, academic staffs’ level of organizational commitment was significantly different with reference to their level of education. Thus, it is recommended that the working environment of the university is revisited by giving due emphasis to and addressing the determinants that lower the organizational commitment of the staff.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".