MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7052716256

‘Someone Else’s Problem’: Behaviour in Communal Kitchens as an Expression of Social Support in the Workplace

2018· other· en· W7052716256 sur OpenAlexfundno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUSC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast) · 2018
Typeother
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueLaser Design and Applications
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesKing's College LondonNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaU.S. Department of DefenseTrent UniversityLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceMenzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of LondonNottingham Trent UniversityNational Institute for Occupational Safety and HealthPortland State University
Mots-clésSocial supportJob satisfactionJob attitudeWork (physics)Sample (material)Multilevel modelExploratory factor analysisLocus of control
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Social support is central to theories about the workplace, with positive interactions buffering work demands and stressors. The current study explored whether active and cheerful involvement in shared workplace kitchens can be considered as distinct forms of social support and further increase the individuals’ own job satisfaction and organisational commitment, over and above more common and general measures of job social support. Methods: Volunteers (N=103, 90.3% female) completed an online survey about interactions with colleagues in communal workplace kitchens, along with measures of work climate and job social support (e.g., ‘if necessary, can you ask your co-workers for support?’), demographics, work locus of control (WLoC), and the outcomes of job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Following exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the kitchen behaviours, hierarchical multiple regressions (HMRs) were used to find if these behaviours first, directly predicted job satisfaction and organisational commitment, and second, predicted the outcomes over and above age, WLoC, job social support, and work climate. Results: Participants ranged from 23 to 65 years (M=41.8, SD=11.0), were mostly married or living with their partner (71.6%), and worked from 7 to 70 hours/week (M=37.6, SD=12.8) in wide variety of occupations (mostly in education (31.4%) or health (29.4%)). Despite the modest sample size, the EFA showed good fit (KMO=.801, explaining 55.7% variance) for four factors; two positive – ‘Collegiality’ (e.g., ‘it feels like a genuine team’) and ‘Participation’ (e.g., ‘I participate in the social activities in my work area’) and two negative – ‘Messy kitchen’ (e.g., ‘kitchen never stays clean long’) and ‘it’s Someone Else’s Problem’ (e.g., ‘the cleaners should be looking after the kitchen’). Correlations were in expected directions. In the first HMR, the four factors explained substantial variance in job satisfaction (35.9%) and organisational commitment (40.9%), and both outcomes were strongly predicted by greater collegiality and where the kitchen was not ‘someone’s else’s problem’. The second HMRs again explained substantial variance (job satisfaction, 68.2%, organisational commitment, 55.9%). Collegiality remained a significant predictor of both outcomes, with the effect of ‘It’s Someone Else’s Problem’ meditated by internal WLoC. Both outcomes were predicted by greater internal WLoC, and where participants reported greater collegiality and a positive work climate, with job satisfaction additionally predicted by older age and more job social support. Discussion: The current study found that social support, specifically as collegiality or more generally as positive work climates and reliable managers and co-workers, and internal work locus of control strongly and positively predicted both satisfaction and commitment to one’s job. The additional items about being pleasantly involved with work colleagues and specifically to be helpful around the communal work kitchen added to the explanation of social support. The items also indicate areas in which interventions could target work cultures, such as fostering team cohesion and collegiality as well as encouraging fun within the work environment. Future research will test the structure of the factors of kitchen behaviours in larger populations, and in samples that include more men, to confirm the factor structure and usefulness of the new scales.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,003
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,010

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,289
Écart entre enseignants0,254 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUSC Research Bank (University of the Sunshine Coast)Même sujetLaser Design and ApplicationsTravaux en français237 207