Work motivation in three-way interaction with organizational justice across four different managerial positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The current study aims to propose a novel three-way interaction of work motivation (intrinsic/extrinsic) and work environment (organizational justice), in a Romanian context. Moreover, as managers and employees do not have the same needs, workloads and performance assessments, so the research model is tested in four groups: employees, office managers, department managers and executives. Additionally, a minor goal is to replicate known relationships in the literature in a non-Western country. Design/methodology/approach To this end, a total sample of N = 3,287 Romanian participants was obtained, using established, valid and known measures. Statistical analyses included common-method bias analysis, zero-order Pearson correlations and linear regressions with bootstrapping. Findings Results support the hypothesized three-way interaction, such that only when both motivations are high does the work environment have a profound effect on organizational outcomes, but when both are low, the employee becomes indifferent to the work. Originality/value Workplace fairness and work motivation are topics concerning employees and managers alike. While their roles in contributing to reduce work misbehaviors and increase extra role behaviors have been outlined in the past as, they may interact in surprising ways, and differently in every managerial level. On one hand, the current article replicates established associations but, on the other hand, it does so from a non-Western perspective and with the not-yet-researched addition of a three-way interaction between work environment (i.e. perceptions of organizational justice) and the individual's motivational dispositions (i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic work motivations).
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".