Front-line managers as boundary spanners: effects of span and time on nurse supervision satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To examine the influence of nurse manager span (number of direct report staff), time in staff contact, transformational leadership practices and operational hours on nurse supervision satisfaction. BACKGROUND: Increasing role complexity has intensified the boundary spanning functions of managers. Because work demands and scope vary by management position, time in staff contact rather than span may better explain managers' capacity to support staff. METHODS: A descriptive, correlational design was used to collect cross-sectional survey and prospective work log and administrative data from a convenience sample of 558 nurses in 51 clinical areas and 31 front-line nurse managers from four acute care hospitals in 2007-2008. Data were analysed using hierarchical linear modelling. RESULTS: Span, but not time in staff contact, interacted with leadership and operational hours to explain supervision satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: With compressed operational hours, supervision satisfaction was lower with highly transformational leadership in combination with wider spans. With extended operational hours, supervision satisfaction was higher with highly transformational leadership, and this effect was more pronounced under wider spans. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Operational hours, which influence the manager's daily span (average number of direct report staff working per weekday), should be factored into the design of front-line management positions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".