MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107390684 · doi:10.5267/j.msl.2020.11.033

Factors affecting employees’ motivation

2020· article· en· W3107390684 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Doan Hong Le, Perfecto G. Aquino, Revenio C. Jalagat, Nguyen Thanh Truc, Le Khac Quang, Le Thi Hoang My

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicBusiness and Economic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPromotion (chess)Data collectionDescriptive statisticsHuman resourcesPsychologyWork (physics)Human resource managementWork motivationMarketingEmployee motivationEmpirical researchBusinessApplied psychologyManagementSociologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceEconomicsStatisticsEngineeringPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study primordially aimed at determining the effects of different factors affecting employee’s motivation at Groz-Beckert Vietnam Co. Ltd. Upon perusal and review of related literature, the researchers found out that there is a dearth of studies that have been conducted relative to this subject appertaining to MNCs in Asian countries. Thus, this paper intends to provide empirical evidences towards the link between and among selected variables being covered in this study. The researchers used the quantitative research analysis method which have surveyed and floated questionnaires to 300 employees from various units, departments, divisions at Groz-Beckert Vietnam Company Ltd and retrieved 265 validated responses. Research result further revealed that, out of the 7 factors: income and benefit, superior, work result, colleague, work condition, training and promotion, work nature positively and significantly impacts the staffs and workers of the said organization. Based on research results and findings, the researchers will provide some viable and palatable recommendations for the human resource development policies and such proposals can enhance employee’s motivation in the said entity. For ease of data collection, convenience sampling was adopted. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 21 that included descriptive and inferential statistics. The outcomes of the study showed that almost all the variables have positive correlation with the workers motivation in performing their jobs at the workplace.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement Science LettersSame topicBusiness and Economic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207