Cognitive Motivational Perspectives of Performance Measurement System and Organisational Commitment: Role Ambiguity as a Mediator
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".