Overwhelmed by family, but supported by likeminded, trustworthy coworkers: effects on role ambiguity and championing behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study addresses how and when the experience of family-induced work strain might steer employees away from efforts to promote innovative ideas. In particular, it proposes a mediating role of role ambiguity and moderating roles of two coworker resources (goal congruence and goodwill trust) in this process. Design/methodology/approach The research hypotheses are tested with data obtained from a survey administered among employees who work in a professional services organization. Findings An important explanatory mechanism that links family interference with work to diminished championing efforts is that employees hold beliefs that their job roles are unclear. The extent to which employees share work-related mindsets with coworkers, as well as their belief that coworkers are trustworthy, attenuate this harmful effect. Practical implications For HR managers, the study shows a clear danger that threatens employees who feel drained by significant family demands: The negative situation may escalate into work-related complacency (diminished championing), which then may generate even more hardships. As it also reveals though, employees can leverage high-quality coworker relationships to contain this danger. Originality/value This study adds to HR management research by investigating the role of negative spillovers from family to work in predicting idea championing, as explained by negative beliefs about job-related information deficiencies but buffered by high-quality coworker relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".