Does leader‐member exchange ambivalence hinder employee well‐being? Exploring relations with work engagement and emotional exhaustion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent research has introduced the concept of leader-member exchange (LMX) ambivalence and has shown that it can be detrimental to employee task performance. Drawing on self-determination theory and models of LMX development, this research investigates whether LMX ambivalence may also negatively influence employee well-being. In a two-wave field study with 278 employees in a large police organisation, we found that LMX ambivalence was significantly associated with two focal measures of work-related well-being: work engagement and emotional exhaustion, through its influence on psychological need fulfilment. Perceived positive meaning in work was found to buffer the negative effects of LMX ambivalence on psychological need fulfilment and well-being. Overall, these results contribute to the occupational health literature by demonstrating that psychological need fulfilment helps explain why LMX ambivalence negatively affects work related well-being outcomes and underscores the important role of positive meaning in work as a buffer for these 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".