Research on the Effect of the Different Empathy Ability of Supervisor on the Turnover Intention in the Organizational Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This research is made to find out what kind of moderating effect the empathy ability of supervisor makes on the turnover intention in the hierarchical organizational culture.Methods/Statistical analysis: The subjects for this research are the employees working for small and mid-sized companies in Korea and the questionnaires were distributed to them for the research. The questionnaire was made up of 16 questions including 4 demographical questions and the measuring was made by using 5-point Likert scale. For the empirical analysis, SPSS 23.0 program was used and the feasibility analysis, reliability analysis, regression analysis and the test of moderating effect were performed.Findings: As the number of independent variable was just one, the factory analysis was not conducted. The results of reliability analysis showed that Cronbach Alpha values were all 0.6 or more. In addition, the correlation analysis results showed that the correlation between the hierarchical organizational culture and turnover intention was 0.931 and the correlation between the hierarchical organizational culture and the empathy ability of supervisor was 0.242, thus showing the low correlation. On the other hand, the correlation between the turnover intention and the empathy ability of supervisor was 0.661, thus showing a little high correlation. All of them showed the significance probabilities of 0.0000. The regression analysis showed that the hierarchical organizational culture made a significant effect on the turnover intention. As the analysis of moderating effect shows the increase in the value R2 with the significance probability of less than 0.05, it was confirmed that the empathy ability of supervisor has the moderating effect. This means that even though the hierarchical organizational culture may affect the turnover intention, the empathy ability of supervisor may lower the turnover intention.Improvements/Applications: The future researches are required to focus on the methodology of enhancing the empathy ability and the tools for measuring the empathy ability along with the development of program.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".