Being a family supportive team leader: Implications for team emotional climate and performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The impact of family‐supportive supervision at the team level has largely not been explored. Since teams are the cornerstone of organizational effectiveness, it is critical to understand how family‐supportive managers can lead teams to achieve higher performance. We develop and test a team‐level moderated mediation model that unpacks the team‐level impact of Family Supportive Supervisor Behaviours (FSSB) on team performance. Drawing on Conservation of Resources (COR) theory, we hypothesize that a team's other‐focused emotional climate mediates the positive effects of team FSSB on team performance and that managers' relational job characteristics attenuate the positive influence of team FSSB. Results from a two‐wave, multi‐source study of 435 employees and their managers across 56 electronic retail stores support our predictions. These findings advance current multi‐level theorizing on FSSB by shedding new light on how and when family‐supportive managers can drive team performance. The implications for theory and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".