The impact of digital HRM on employee performance through employee motivation
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
This study aims at investigating the effect of digital HRM practices on employee motivation and hence employee job performance, or in other words, the mediating role of employee motivation between digital HRM practices and employee job performance. Two digital HRM practices were used in this study: digital training and digital performance appraisal. Collecting data using a valid and reliable questionnaire from employees at industrial companies, the results show that digital training had significant effects on both employee motivation and job performance, digital performance appraisal had significant effects on employee motivation and performance appraisal, and employee motivation exerted a significant effect on job performance. Consequently, it was approved that employee motivation partially mediated the effect of digital HRM practices on job performance. It was concluded that skilled employees who are aware of their performance level are motivated to show higher levels of job performance. Theoretically, the study called scholars to carry out further results to examine the effects of other HRM practices on job performance through employee motivation. Empirically, organizations are requested to conduct training sessions and assess employee performance using digital means.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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