Examining the conditional effects of supervisors’ availability expectations after work hours: the moderating role of longitudinal need-related supervisory behaviour profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated how the effects of employees’ perceptions of supervisors’ availability expectations on their behaviours are moderated by need-related supervisory behaviour profiles. To that end, we relied on a person-centred approach to examine how employees’ perceptions of their supervisors’ need-supportive, need-thwarting, and need-indifferent behaviours combine within distinct profiles, as well as the nature, stability, and outcomes of these profiles. A sample of 598 employees was surveyed twice over a three-month interval. Our results revealed five need-related supervisory behaviour profiles: (1) Globally Moderate and Specifically Thwarting, (2) Globally Moderate and Specifically Indifferent, (3) Globally Favourable and Specifically Supportive, (4) Globally Unfavourable, and (5) Globally Favourable and Specifically Indifferent. These profiles displayed a very high level of within-sample and within-person stability over time. Levels of turnover intention, soldiering, and counterproductive work behaviours differed across profiles, with the highest levels of turnover intention found in the Globally Unfavourable profile while the highest levels of soldiering and counterproductive work behaviours were found in the Globally Moderate and Specifically Indifferent profile. Finally, supervisors’ availability expectations were positively associated with counterproductive work behaviours in the Globally Unfavourable, Globally Moderate and Specifically Thwarting, and Globally Favourable and Specifically Indifferent profiles, with soldiering in the Globally Favourable and Specifically Indifferent profile, and with turnover intention in the Globally Moderate and Specifically Indifferent profile.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".