Employees perceptions of non‐monetary recognition practice and turnover: Does recognition source alignment and contrast matter?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nonmonetary recognition originates from various sources (distal and proximal) and research has yet to examine the interplay among them. Results of a 2‐year time‐lagged study ( N = 221), employing polynomial regression and response surface analysis, revealed that when distal organisational nonmonetary recognition is aligned with recognition from proximal sources, employees had lower turnover intentions and, indirectly, were less likely to quit 2 years later. For the most part, these relationships do not differ significantly based on the level at which alignment of distal and proximal recognition occurs. In terms of contrasts, when distal recognition exceeds the level of proximal recognition from the supervisor, turnover intentions are higher. For other proximal sources (co‐workers, physicians and patients), turnover intentions were higher irrespective of the type of contrast. This study adds to the strategic HRM literature by showing that contrasts between distal and proximal recognition undermine HR practice perception and employees' organisational attachment.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it