Organizational Performance
Every factor researchers have brought together to explain organizational performance, combined from 3 study models into one ranked driver set — the model the priority engine reasons over.
7 drivers · 3 contributing models · Handbook entry →
§1The drivers, by consensus
Ranked by how many independent models include each driver (consensus), then pooled effect. “In N of 3” is a robustness signal — a driver in many models is one many researchers agreed matters; a driver in one is a single lead worth following.
| Driver | Consensus | Pooled r | Grade | Heterogeneity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collective Turnover | 2 / 3 | −0.09 | A | I²≈1.00 |
| High Performance Work Systems | 1 / 3 | +0.28 | A | — |
| High Involvement Work Practices Hiwps | 1 / 3 | +0.20 | A | — |
| High Performance Work Practices | 1 / 3 | +0.20 | A | — |
| Voluntary Turnover | 1 / 3 | −0.15 | A | — |
| Employee Turnover | 1 / 3 | −0.03 | A | — |
| Involuntary Turnover | 1 / 3 | −0.01 | A | — |
“Pooled r” is the meta-analytic prior where one exists; drivers marked study-reported have a model but not yet a pooled prior — a concrete acquisition target. This is the value-of-information view in miniature: the priority engine can rank which driver to measure first by consensus, strength, and how much is still unknown.
§2The models it’s built from
Each contributing study model — the researcher’s theory of this outcome — with its size and grade, so the meta-model is auditable back to its sources.
| Source study | Predictors | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| doi:10.1037/a0030723 | 3 | A |
| doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00045.x | 3 | A |
| doi:10.1177/0149206311424943 | 2 | A |