The impact of positive work relationships on proactive behaviors: A multilevel study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes and then tests a cross‐level model pertaining to the intrapersonal and collective antecedents of work‐related proactive behaviors. The model posits individual‐level positive relational experiences and unit‐level relational coordination as social contextual antecedents of individual‐level proactive behaviors. The effects of these mechanisms are hypothesized to be mediated respectively by individual‐level role breadth self‐efficacy and unit‐level psychological safety climate. To test the proposed model, multi‐source data were collected from a representative sample of 246 staff nurses and their respective unit managers, based in four privately owned hospitals. Supporting evidence for the model enriches understanding of the role of social context in variously enabling and undermining the expression of proactive behaviors on the part of individuals, suitably aligned with the wider needs of key organizational units, in safety‐critical work environments. We discuss the implications of our findings for fostering such behavioral alignment and outline directions for future research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".