EFFECT OF REWARD SYSTEM ON INNOVATIVE WORK BEHAVIOUR THROUGH TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT AND PROFICIENCY: MODERATING ROLE OF MULTICULTURALISM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Innovative work behaviour (IWB) of employees is considered substantial for the organizational development to achieve competitive edge. That is why organizations are continuously working to improve their mechanism of enhancing IWB of the employees. Previous studies are evident that a good reward system can play an effective role in achieving the desired results because when employees are rewarded, they become more committed and produce innovative ideas for the companies’ proficiency. Therefore, present study is aimed to find out the effect of reward system on IWB of the employees through temporary organizational commitment (TOC), temporary organizational proficiency (TOP). It further explores the moderating role of multiculturalism between TOC, TOP and IWB. Data is collected from 362 contractual employees of the multinational companies of Pakistan through questionnaire survey. The findings of the study depicted that TOC and TOP mediates the relationship between reward system and IWB. The moderating role of multiculturalism is well explained in the relationship of TOP and IWB. Multiculturalism decreases the positive effect of TOP on IWB. These results will be helpful for the organizations to achieve the project success
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 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".