Going the Extra Mile (or Not): A Moderated Mediation Analysis of Job Resources, Abusive Leadership, Autonomous Motivation, and Extra-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
Abusive leadership is particularly prevalent in nursing and it can have multiple adverse effects on performance at work. However, little research has examined whether and under what conditions abusive leadership may be detrimental to nurses’ extra-role performance. This cross-sectional study explores whether abusive leadership intensifies the effects of emotional job resources on autonomous motivation, a psychological mechanism that could be responsible for extra-role performance. Data were collected from dyads of registered French-Canadian nurses and their immediate supervisors (n = 99 dyads). The models were tested with path analysis using Mplus. Our results show that extra-role performance is positively associated with nurses’ job emotional resources and autonomous motivation, but negatively associated with abusive leadership. Nurses’ cynicism is also negatively associated with autonomous motivation. Importantly, the indirect relation between emotional resources and extra-role performance through autonomous motivation is moderated by abusive leadership, providing support for a moderated mediation effect. These results add to those supporting a similar moderated mediation mechanism to explain employee attitudes and demonstrate the relevance of self-determination theory in a work context. These findings reinforce the need to focus on the quality of leadership practices as well as interventions aimed at promoting the performance of nurses at work.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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