Team reflexivity, thriving at work and employees' work-to-family enrichment: a multilevel perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on the conservation of resources theory, the authors propose a research model depicting the positive relationship between team reflexivity and work-to-family enrichment via the mediation of thriving at work, with the moderation of transformational leadership. This paper aims to discuss the aforementioned idea. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected data from 367 employees in 79 teams at three time points. The authors test the model by using a multilevel moderated mediation analysis. Findings Results of this paper indicate that thriving at work partially mediates the relationship between team reflexivity and work-to-family enrichment. Furthermore, transformational leadership enhances the positive relationship between team reflexivity and thriving at work. Practical implications Organizations are advised to encourage employees' involvement in team reflexivity, facilitate their thriving at work and raise managers' awareness of work-family issues. Exemplary measures include nurturing open communication and providing training programs that encourage positivity in the workplace. By doing so, organization could strengthen the relationship between team reflexivity and work-to-family enrichment. Originality/value This research demonstrates the positive relationship between team reflexivity and work-to-family enrichment, deepening theoretical understanding of the antecedents of the construct. The findings of moderated mediation analysis shed light on the mechanism through which team reflexivity affects work-to-family enrichment, and the role that transformational leadership plays.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".