The meaning of support from co-workers and managers in teams when working
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report is part of a post-doc research project on factors that promote work motivation and occupational self-efficacy in organizations in Sweden and Canada. The purpose of this report was to investigate the relations between support for autonomy and competence by managers and co-workers and employees’ work motivation, occupational self-efficacy, and team commitment. Research has shown that support for autonomy from managers has positive effects, but it has not examined how co-worker support for autonomy can affect employees’ experiences and the relative importance of both sources of support. In two studies, one with a sample of 45 employees in a Swedish private research oriented company (6 females and 39 males) and one with a sample of 235 Swedish care givers (214 females and 21 males) completed surveys. Results showed that employees perceived high levels of motivation and self-efficacy. Study 2 also showed that employees perceived greater support for autonomy from co-workers than from managers but greater support for competence from managers. As in previous studies, support from managers was significantly positively related to employees’ outcomes. However, results also showed that co-worker support predicted these outcomes over and above the effects of managerial support and that support for autonomy was related to motivation while support for competence was related to self-efficacy. Moreover, the effects of support from co-workers were significantly stronger than those obtained from managers for self-efficacy. Finally, motivation and self-efficacy predicted team commitment for care givers in study 2, while support from manager was related to normative team commitment in study 1. The implications of these results for how organizations may optimize employees’ functioning through teamwork are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".