Unpacking the combined effects of job scope and supervisor support on in-role performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore how the relationship between job scope and in-role performance is contingent upon the level of social support (i.e. supervisor support) received in the workplace. Design/methodology/approach A total of 640 questionnaires were distributed to employees of Pakistani companies, yielding 328 useable responses for analysis. Regression analysis was used to test for both hypotheses. Findings The results support the role of supervisor support as a moderator in the relationship between in-role performance, a dimension of job performance and job scope. The findings show that a higher job scope would facilitate higher job performance from employees who receive high levels of supervisor support. Practical implications The results provide useful insights for managers and consultants, especially HR professionals involved in job design and redesign. Organizations that encourage high levels of social support can help employees improve their job performance as they foster an environment where employees can get direct assistance and advice from their supervisors. Originality/value This paper makes three key contributions to the literature on job design. First, this inquiry shows that a strong link does exist between job scope and job performance; previous studies have failed to find a strong relationship. Second, it highlights how social context, especially in highly challenging work settings, can shape employees’ proficiencies and behaviors. Third, this paper offers a novel perspective in job design research by incorporating a contextual moderator (i.e. supervisor support).
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it