Will Event Volunteers’ Role Ambiguity Affect Performance? Role of Social Exchange Qualities and Gender
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates how role ambiguity affects the performance of event volunteers, particularly in charity sport events. The research explores the roles of social exchange qualities, such as team-member exchange (TMX) and leader-member exchange (LMX), in mitigating the negative effects of role ambiguity on job performance. Data were collected from volunteers at charity sport events in the U.S. between 2019 and 2021. Key findings include: Role ambiguity negatively impacts volunteer job performance. High-quality interactions with team members (TMX) and leaders (LMX) help reduce role ambiguity, thereby improving job performance. Gender moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and job performance, with male volunteers being more affected by role ambiguity than female volunteers. The study suggests that enhancing social exchanges among volunteers and providing clear role definitions can improve volunteer performance. Practical recommendations include using social media for team building and providing clear communication and feedback to volunteers. The research highlights the importance of addressing role ambiguity to support volunteer effectiveness and satisfaction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".