Work intensity, work hours, satisfactions, and psychological well‐being among Egyptian managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship of measures of work intensity and work hours on potential antecedents and work and well‐being consequences. Design/methodology/approach Data are collected from 242 male and female managers and professionals working in a variety of organizations in Egypt using anonymously completed questionnaires, with a 48 percent response rate. Findings Work intensity is significantly correlated with work hours, but weakly. Work hours and work intensity share only one common personal demographic and work situation predictor (level of education) but it has opposite relationships with the work hours and work intensity measures. Work hours and work intensity also share one common stable personality predictor, non‐required work, and a workaholic job behavior. This measure however likely reflectes the requirements of managerial jobs more than the addictive and negative aspects of workaholism. Work intensity is more strongly and consistently related to both work and well‐being outcomes. Interestingly, work intensity is positively related to work outcomes and negatively related to indicators of psychological well‐being. Research limitations/implications The sample is likely non‐representative of Egyptian managers and data are collected at one point in time making it difficult to determine causality. Practical implications The results suggest that work intensity may be more important than work hours as factors in employee work experiences. Originality/value The paper fills a gap in understanding of human resource management practices and experiences in Egypt.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".