Do individual attachment styles in the workplace affect a follower’s job satisfaction, engagement and commitment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate if individual attachment styles of followers within the leader-follower relationship were associated with levels of job satisfaction, employee engagement and organisational commitment. A cross sectional sample of 70 employees ranging from entry level to middle management were included in the study. Participants completed an online self report survey covering demographic items, followed by 4 existing questionnaires covering attachment, job satisfaction, employee engagement and commitment in the workplace. Results supported a negative relationship between anxious attachment and job satisfaction (R (65) = -0.295, p< 0.5). A positive relationship was found between anxious attachment and continuance commitment (R (59) = 0.383, p < .01) and avoidant attachment and normative commitment (R (59) = 0.269, p < .05), which although was contrary to the supposed hypotheses with respect to commitment, serves to add to the growing literature regarding the application of Attachment Theory to the workplace. Findings suggest further research is required, however indicate that addressing attachment styles in the workplace could have a beneficial outcome for the organisation and the individual.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".