Employee engagement in nonprofit organizations: the role of perception of HR and organizational culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The study draws on social exchange theory and theoretical perspectives on engagement to examine the multidimensional relationship between employee perception of HR practices (PHRP), organizational culture (POC) and engagement in nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in a sample of nonprofits in Canada. Design/methodology/approach This study examines the relationship between PHRP, POC and engagement in NPOs. The authors employed a quantitative research design (Creswell, 1998) involving data from a sample of NPOs in Ontario, Canada. Findings The findings suggest that PHRP has a direct effect on the level of both job and organization engagement. Employee perception of the value, relevance and importance of the job and membership in the organization induce the investment of physical, cognitive and emotional energy. The study emphasizes the importance of PHRP at individual and organizational levels as antecedents of engagement. Research limitations/implications The findings highlight the need to examine the contextual drivers of HR practices and engagement to better understand the multidimensional context of NPOs (Borzaga and Tortia, 2006). Practical implications The evidence reiterates the need for nonprofit managers to develop and implement HR practices that advance engagement. Originality/value Although what is known about nonprofit employee engagement is limited but growing (Park, Kim, Park, and Lim, 2018), the question of engagement and perception of HR in NPOs is yet to be examined.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".