MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601226086 · doi:10.1108/02683940910959744

How support‐related managerial behaviors influence employees

2009· article· en· W1601226086 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
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyGeneralizability theorySocial psychologyStructural equation modelingJob satisfactionCoachingOriginalityAgency (philosophy)AutonomyPerceived organizational supportPerceptionApplied psychologyJob performanceValue (mathematics)Organizational commitmentDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of the current study is to test a model of the psychological processes that mediate the impact of managerial supportive and unsupportive behaviors on employees' job‐related attitudes and strain. Design/methodology/approach Data were collected using a cross‐sectional, online survey of employees working in a human services organization who were asked about their managers' support and attitudes toward various aspects of their jobs. The employees included direct service providers, agency administrators, and managers. Findings Structural equation modeling revealed that perceived job autonomy and perceived manager sentiment explained the relationship between managerial behaviors and job satisfaction, job strain, and turnover intentions. Although job self‐efficacy was significantly related to both supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors, it did not explain the relationship between managers' support‐related behaviors and the outcomes of interest. Research limitations/implications Since these data are based on self‐reports, common method bias may have inflated the relationships among the variables. Also, ratings of supervisor behaviors and work‐related perceptions may have been confounded with other unmeasured individual differences, such as neuroticism, and optimism. In addition, the generalizability of the theoretical model is unknown because it was tested in one organization. Practical implications Managerial and leadership development programs can draw on the study findings about particular managerial behaviors that are linked to employees' perceptions of control and to their managers' sentiments about them, which in turn influence how they feel about their jobs and organizations. Originality/value Three original contributions of the study are that: it capitalizes on a detailed, inductively‐derived behavioral measure of managerial support; it examines the effects of both supportive and unsupportive managerial behaviors; and it responds to the call for studies investigating the mechanisms whereby support influences job‐related attitudes and strain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.265 · 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