The effect of organizational culture on the organizational commitment: Evidence from hotel industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study seeks to investigate the association between organizational culture and employees' commitment in the Jordanian hotel sector. The data that were gathered from 248 hotel employees, were about the respondents' organizational culture and its impact on the employees' commitment. Data were collected using the Organizational Culture Index (Wallach, 1983) [Wallach, E. J. (1983). Individuals and organizations: The cultural match. Training & Development Journal,37, 29-36.], and Organizational Culture Questionnaire (Mowday et al. 1982) [Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982). Employee-Organization Linkages: The Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism and Turnover. Academic Press, New York.]. De-scriptive statistics were reported, and hypotheses testing using SmartPLS3 was used. Generally, and with some unexpected outcomes, organizational culture was found to be significantly associated with organizational commitment. It was confirmed that bureaucratic and supportive culture were the predictable dimensions of commitment, while innovative culture was found to be an unpredictable dimension of commitment. This study provides useful managerial implications and contributes to the existing pool of knowledge on the relationships be-tween organizational culture and organizational commitment. Different aspects and context of these variables were tested to provide a wider and more comprehensive understanding on the factors which affect organizations and employees.
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 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".