Cognitive Motivational Perspectives of Performance Measurement System and Organisational Commitment: Role Ambiguity as a Mediator
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
The use of Comprehensive Performance Measurement System (CPMS) in facilitating and influencing decisions has been predominant for such purposes. It is also a complex link of CPMS with individual performance which has been evidenced in the literature in recent years. Nonetheless, prior studies have shown inconsistent findings on CPMS informational characteristics and their behavioral implications. Therefore, by taking the cognitive motivational theory and role theory into account, the current study contends the usefulness of CPMS information in increasing role expectation and motivation. Accordingly, this study examines the influence of CPMS on the role ambiguity of managers and organizational commitment by collecting data from 120 business unit managers of manufacturing companies that are registered under the Federation of Malaysian Manufacturers (FMM). To further examine the mediating effect, the study employed Partial Least Squares and the Sobel test and found that the informational characteristics of CPMS enhance organizational commitment by reducing role ambiguity. Overall, CPMS may provide useful information or feedback to better understand the roles of managers to essentially enhance motivation and improve commitment.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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