The cost of protecting resources: a cross-sectional study on the interaction between LMX and role ambiguity on work addiction and burnout among Canadian first-level healthcare managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Using the conservation of resources (COR) theory, our study explores the interaction between role ambiguity and leader-member exchange (LMX) quality on burnout using work addiction as a mediator among Canadian first-level healthcare managers. Methods: Cross-sectional data was collected among 165 first-level managers working in healthcare with the support of interprofessional associations in Canada. Linear regression was used to test the presented hypotheses. Results: Work addiction fully mediated the positive relationship between role ambiguity and burnout among first-level managers. In addition, high LMX exacerbated both the direct and indirect effects of role ambiguity. Conclusion: Our study contributes by identifying role ambiguity as a context under which LMX can have adverse effects for first-level managers in healthcare. Moreover, work addiction acted as a mediator, theorized as a risky resource investment which depletes managers' resources. Having a good relationship with their team further entices managers to develop a pathological relationship with their work to protect its members, which in turn is related to higher levels of burnout.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".