With Greater Power Comes Greater Stress? Authority, Supervisor Support, and Work‐Family Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective This study investigates how status gains in job authority over time are related to three work‐ and family‐related stressors: job pressure, role blurring, and work‐to‐family conflict. Background Family scholars have long been interested in identifying work conditions as sources of change and stress in family life. Sociologists have devoted much effort in understanding the consequences of stratification for stress exposure—especially for those individuals with status‐based disadvantages. The present study advances work–family research by shifting focus to the status‐based stress exposure of individuals who transition into higher status positions in the workplace. Method This study uses four waves of panel data from the Canadian Work, Stress, and Health Study from 2011 to 2017 (N = 8,240 observations in pooled analysis). We use fixed effects regression techniques to analyze this diverse sample of Canadian workers with multi‐item measures of focal variables. Results We find that increases in job authority are associated with increases in job pressure, role blurring, and work‐to‐family conflict. Moreover, we find that supervisor support is an effective workplace resource to alleviate some of the stress that comes with greater workplace power. Conclusion These findings highlight nuances embedded in the status boost of gaining greater authority in the workplace by revealing some of its downsides for work‐related pressures and strains in the work–family interface. We discuss the implications of these results for stratification and work–family stress research by integrating insights from the stress of higher status and job demands–resources models.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".