Can managers be trained to further support their employees' basic needs and work engagement: A manager training program study
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
Abstract The present paper describes a quasi‐experimental research presenting a workplace training program aimed at helping managers to be more supportive of their employees' autonomy. Drawing on self‐determination theory, we built a pre/post questionnaire design measuring perceived autonomy support, need satisfaction, need frustration, autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, work engagement and job burnout. Seven managers were trained according to the autonomy support training program. We assessed 39 of their employees before and after the intervention. Moreover, 133 employees whose managers were not included in the training program constituted the control group. Regarding the experimental group, the results showed significant statistical differences regarding perceived autonomy support from managers, autonomous motivation, need satisfaction, work engagement and job burnout. No significant effects regarding perceived autonomy support from coworkers controlled motivation, or need frustration were observed. This study provides added value to the theory of need satisfaction and demonstrates that training managers to be need‐supportive may be effective in improving positive work‐related outcomes and reducing negative outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it