Employer Support for Innovative Work and Employees' Job Satisfaction and Job‐related Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There are high levels of global and national underemployment, but limited information is available on the impact of this phenomenon on the quality of employees' working lives. This study examines the relations among perceived employer support for creative work, different forms of underemployment and employee quality of life, including job satisfaction, perceived job security and job satisfaction. METHODS: The study was performed using cross-sectional data from the Canadian 2010 Work and Lifelong Learning Survey (WALL), which included 1,042 randomly selected currently employed participants between the ages of 18 and 64 years of age. RESULTS: The study found a significant inverse association between employer support for innovative work and different forms of underemployment. It also suggested a strong relationship between support for such work and participation in work-related informal learning. The results from this study confirmed the hypothesis that employer support for creative work is significantly associated with the quality of employees' working lives, as manifested through increased job security and job satisfaction. Employees experiencing greater support for workplace creativity report less job-related stress. The present study identified relatively low employer support for creative work and significant differences in the perception of support among managers and workers. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that employer support for innovative work can mitigate significant underutilization of employee knowledge and skills. Such support can contribute to the reduction of job-related stress, increased job satisfaction and perceived job security. This kind of support can also improve the quality of life of employees and facilitate creativity and overall organizational and social development.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".