Culture and the way of granting job autonomy: Goal or execution?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Researchers have assumed that Westerners exercise higher job autonomy than Easterners. However, recent studies have reported mixed and even contradictory findings. The authors distinguish between two types of job autonomy, namely goal and execution autonomy, to examine the relevant cultural differences. The former denotes participation in setting work goals and making plans for meeting those goals, while the latter denotes the ability to complete tasks flexibly. Four studies with a total sample of 1192 participants working in financial or insurance companies were conducted. Study 1a generated items for a new measure of the two types of job autonomy and explored its factor structure. Studies 1b and 1c verified its construct validity and predictive capacity. Study 2 confirmed the structural and metric equivalence of the measure between samples from the United Kingdom and China. The results of Study 2 suggested that the Chinese workers were likely to have high execution autonomy but low goal autonomy, whereas the British workers tended to have high goal autonomy but low execution autonomy. The theoretical and practical implications of job autonomy in cross‐cultural contexts are discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".