The differential impact of interactions outside the organization on employee well‐being
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
We examine two different perspectives of interactions outside the organization: the relational work design perspective and the emotional labour perspective. The relational work design perspective suggests that interactions outside the organization have favourable outcomes for employees, whereas the emotional labour perspective suggests that such interactions have adverse outcomes for employees. Our goal is to reconcile findings from these two research streams. In Study 1, using data from employees working in diverse occupations, we find that interactions outside the organization have a positive indirect effect on employee well‐being via task significance, and a negative indirect effect on employee well‐being via surface acting. In Study 2, using data collected across two time points, we replicate these findings. In Study 3, we further extend these results and illustrate that interactional autonomy and interactional complexity are influential moderators that shape the strength of the mediated relationships. Our results aid in reconciling and extending findings from two different research streams, and enhance our understanding of the role of interactions outside the organization. Practitioner points Managers should consider that employees’ interactions outside the organization have the potential to improve their well‐being. Organizations could redesign jobs to enable employees in customer‐facing roles to have greater discretion in how they interact with their customers and also increase the variety of these interactions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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