Subordinates' perceptions of the need‐supportive, need‐thwarting, and need‐indifferent behaviors used by their supervisors: A person‐centered investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Adopting a recent tripartite operationalization of subordinates' perceptions of their supervisors' behaviors, anchored in self‐determination theory (SDT), this person‐centered study considers the co‐existence of subordinates' perceptions of their supervisors' need‐supportive, need‐thwarting, and need‐indifferent behaviors. Moreover, we also consider how these various combinations (or profiles) of perceived supervisor behaviors relate to subordinates' levels of work motivation, well‐being, attitudes, behaviors, and work–home functioning. A sample of 596 French employees ( M age = 31.22; 73.5% women) participated in this study. Our results revealed six profiles of subordinates characterized by distinct configurations of perceived need‐related behaviors from supervisors ( globally unfavorable , globally favorable and supportive , moderate‐indifferent , moderately favorable and involved , moderately unfavorable , and moderately favorable ). Consistent with our expectations, these profiles displayed well‐differentiated patterns of associations with all of the outcomes considered in this study. These findings underscored the key role of subordinates' specific perceptions of need‐supportive, need‐thwarting, and need‐indifferent behaviors, over and above their global perceptions of their supervisors' behaviors, in determining how beneficial or harmful supervisory profiles are. In particular, our results also highlighted the critical role played by need‐indifferent behaviors, which prove to be a very important, and yet typically neglected, component of subordinates' perceptions of their supervisors' behaviors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".