The Role of Attractive Employers and Perceived Organizational Support \non Employee Motivation and Engagement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The functions of an employer brand are to attract and retain employees. Previous research on incumbent employees has typically focused on commitment related variables; therefore, it remains unclear whether working for an attractive employer motivates incumbent employees to engage in their work. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the process in which organizational attractiveness leads to employee engagement. Drawing from both signaling and self-determination theory, this study proposes that organizational attractiveness will lead to employee engagement through autonomous motivation. It is also proposed that this relationship would be dependent upon whether the incumbent employee experiences perceived organizational support. Employees (n = 220) from various firms across North America were recruited and surveyed online at two time points. Organizational attractiveness and its dimensions positively predicted employee engagement and autonomous motivation. It was also found that autonomous motivation mediates the influence of organizational attractiveness on employee engagement; whereas the effect appears to be moderated by perceived organizational support. Results showed support for the mediation-moderation model. However, different patterns emerged for the moderating effect of perceived organizational support. It is concluded that brand value dimensions along with organizational support interact to motivate incumbent employees to engage in their work. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".