Linking Workers’ Supportive Voice and Task Performance through Workers’ Perception of Decent Work and Distributive Justice Climate: A Multilevel Research on the RMG Industry in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior scholarly works suggest that workers' promotive behavior and positive perception of decent work enhance performance, and employers prefer and are fair to workers with supportive voice behavior. Nonetheless, Bangladeshi workers tend to display destructive voice behavior, leaving the possibility of exploring the influence of their supportive voice. This study examined the influence of workers' supportive voice on their task performance through the mediation of their perception of decent work and the moderation of distributive justice climate. Data had been collected from 396 working adults in the RMG industry in Bangladesh and analyzed using multilevel path analysis. Based on the social exchange theory, the equity theory, and psychology of working theory, the findings showed a positive relationship between workers' supportive voice and task performance with positive mediation of workers' perception of decent work. Distributive justice climate positively moderates the relationship between workers' supportive voice and workers’ perception of decent work but does not significantly moderate the relationship between workers’ perception of decent work and workers’ task performance. The findings suggest that employers should confirm a fair and just workplace to amplify workers’ supportive behavior, decent work perception, and 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".