How support‐related managerial behaviors influence employees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".