“Bend so you don’t break!” A longitudinal moderated mediation study on human resources management practices, humility, psychological well-being, and job performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: This study aims to examine the mediating role of psychological well-being in the relationships between human resources management practices and job performance. Also, this study aims to assess the moderating role of humility on these relationships. Methods: Multiple regression, mediation, and moderation analyses were conducted with MPlus software on a sample of 569 workers who filled out a questionnaire at both Time 1 and Time 2. Both data collections took place between April 20, 2022, and May 2, 2022, for Time 1, and between June 20, 2022, and July 3, 2022, for Time 2. Data were collected through the Leger Opinion (LEO) online panel, with respondents required to be workers. Results: We found that psychological well-being at T1 did not play a mediating role between human resources management practices at T1 and job performance at T2. Also, humility did not moderate the relationships between human resources management practices at T1 and psychological well-being at T1 but did significantly moderate the longitudinal relationships between human resources management practices at T1 (i.e., dotation, formation, career management, autonomy, occupational health and safety, diversity management, indirect compensation, flexibility, performance management), and job performance at T2. Discussion: For all significant interactions, the results indicated that when humility was high, the longitudinal effect of good human resources management practices led to high in-role job performance.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".