Supervisors’ need-related behaviors and employees’ functioning: A person-centered investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a recent tripartite representation of supervisors’ behaviors rooted in Self-Determination Theory (SDT), this person-centered study sought to identify the different configurations (profiles) of supervisors’ need-supportive, need-thwarting, and need-indifferent behaviors as perceived by their subordinates. It also investigated how these supervisory profiles were related to subordinates’ levels of need satisfaction, affective organizational commitment, performance, and burnout. Latent profile analyses were estimated in a sample of 807 employees ( M age = 39.17; 42.7% women) recruited via the Prolific Academic crowdsourcing platform. Our results revealed five distinct profiles of supervisors’ need-related behaviors: (1) globally unfavorable, (2) globally moderately unfavorable and specifically indifferent, (3) globally moderately favorable, (4) globally unfavorable and specifically thwarting, and (5) globally unfavorable and specifically inconsistent. In line with our expectations, these profiles shared distinct associations with all outcomes. Moreover, our results showed that subordinates’ specific perceptions of their supervisor need-related behaviors mattered, beyond their global perception of their supervisor, when predicting employee functioning. These findings underline the importance of considering global and specific levels of need-related behaviors when seeking to understand supervisory profiles and their associations with employee functioning.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".