MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1556125521 · doi:10.1108/02683940910952732

The positive interaction of work and family roles

2009· article· en· W1556125521 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Managerial Psychology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWork-Family Balance Challenges
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJob enrichmentPsychologyAutonomyCompetence (human resources)Work (physics)Affect (linguistics)Social psychologyApplied psychologyJob designJob performanceJob satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the predominant theoretical frameworks used to describe the interaction between work and family roles and present an integrative model of work‐family enrichment. The goal is to better understand the psychological processes underlying work‐family enrichment and to identify ways in which work‐family enrichment can be increased. A conceptual and testable model depicting the direct and indirect relationships involved in work‐family enrichment is provided. Design/methodology/approach A review of past theories describing the work‐family interface is provided, followed by the presentation of a theoretical and testable model depicting the relationships between work‐family enrichment and need theory. Findings It is suggested that the basic needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are presented as important psychological benefits that directly impact affect within a domain and indirectly influence work‐family enrichment and quality of life. Research limitations/implications This paper suggests several future directions that researchers can undertake to advance the understanding of positive linkages between work and family. These future directions include: testing the propositions related to need theory through a daily study approach, examining organizational and personal antecedents and consequences associated with work‐family enrichment, and testing the aspects of the presented model to further the new area of research, integrating work‐family enrichment and need theory. Practical implications This paper highlights several practical recommendations for individuals and organizations. These include: the need to focus beyond work‐family conflict towards work‐family enrichment, incorporating basic psychological need fulfillment into employees' developmental goals, and for employees to seek psychological benefits to buffer any costs within a role when trying to balance work and family. Originality/value This paper addresses several gaps in the previous work‐family literature including: the primary focus on the negative interaction between work and family; the lack of theoretical exploration into how and why multiple roles can lead to work‐family enrichment; and specifically, the integration of need theory as an explanation for work‐family enrichment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.885
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it